Pregnancy Accommodations: A Wake‑Up Call for Employers in MA, CT & RI
EEOC lawsuit highlights a common—and costly—compliance gap
A recent EEOC lawsuit against a Florida employer is making national headlines—and for good reason. The case is a textbook example of what happens when employers treat the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as the only framework governing pregnancy‑related limitations. Spoiler: it isn’t. Not even close. The EEOC alleges that the employer forced pregnant workers to resign if they missed more than two weeks of work and didn’t qualify for FMLA. No individualized assessment. No interactive process. No consideration of reasonable accommodations. Just a rigid policy applied with all the nuance of a sledgehammer. For employers in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—states with some of the strongest pregnancy‑protection laws in the country—this case is a timely reminder: FMLA is the floor, not the ceiling. And failing to understand the broader legal landscape can put your organization squarely in the EEOC’s crosshairs.
1. FMLA Eligibility Is Not the End of the Analysis
A common employer mistake: assuming that if an employee is not eligible for FMLA—or has exhausted it—the employer’s obligations end. They don’t. Not under federal law, and certainly not under New England state laws.
Federal Requirements
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy‑related limitations.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may also apply when pregnancy‑related conditions rise to the level of a disability.
Leave can be a reasonable accommodation—even if FMLA is unavailable.
The employer in the EEOC case allegedly skipped this step entirely. That’s the compliance gap the agency is now spotlighting.
2. New England Employers Face Even Higher Standards
Here’s where it gets especially important for your clients:
A. Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires reasonable accommodations and prohibits forcing leave when another accommodation would allow the employee to keep working.
MA also has a strong anti‑discrimination framework under Chapter 151B.
B. Connecticut
Connecticut’s Pregnancy Disability Law and Fair Employment Practices Act require accommodations and prohibit adverse actions based on pregnancy.
CT’s standards often exceed federal requirements.
C. Rhode Island
Rhode Island’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act mirrors and in some areas expands upon federal protections.
RI also has robust leave laws that interact with pregnancy‑related absences.
If a Florida employer is getting sued for failing to accommodate pregnant workers, New England employers—operating under stricter state laws—should take this as a flashing red warning light.
3. Rigid Attendance Policies Are a Liability
The employer in the EEOC case relied on a “maximum leave” rule that forced resignations after two weeks of absence. The EEOC’s position is clear: policies cannot override the obligation to engage in an individualized, interactive process.
In MA, CT, and RI, a rigid policy is not a shield—it’s evidence.
Employers must:
Evaluate the employee’s specific limitations
Consider reasonable accommodations
Document the interactive process
Avoid defaulting to leave or separation
4. Rethink the Question: Not “Can They Take Leave?” but “What Do They Need to Stay Employed?”
A shift in mindset: The goal is to maintain employment whenever possible. Pregnancy is temporary. The law expects employers to act accordingly.
Reasonable accommodations may include:
Modified duties
Reduced lifting
Additional breaks
Temporary reassignment
Flexible scheduling
Temporary leave (even beyond FMLA)
This is not just best practice—it’s legally required.
5. Culture Still Matters
Policies are only half the equation. Workplace culture—comments, jokes, attitudes—can create evidence of discriminatory intent.
In New England’s tight labor markets, culture is also a retention issue. Employers who mishandle pregnancy accommodations risk:
Legal exposure
Reputational harm
Losing valuable employees
Creating a culture of fear or resentment
6. Practical Steps for MA, CT & RI Employers
Here’s what your business clients should be doing now:
A. Revisit attendance and leave policies
Ensure they allow for individualized accommodation analysis.
B. Train managers
They must understand that pregnancy triggers accommodation obligations—not just leave eligibility.
C. Update job descriptions
Accurate essential functions are critical for accommodation analysis.
D. Document the interactive process
Courts and agencies expect to see it.
E. Coordinate federal and state laws
New England employers must layer PWFA, ADA, FMLA, and state‑specific laws.
F. Foster a respectful culture
Jokes and comments about pregnancy are not harmless—they’re evidence.
Conclusion
The EEOC’s lawsuit is not just about one employer’s missteps. It’s a signal that the agency is watching how organizations apply the PWFA and related laws in real time. For employers in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—where state protections are even stronger—this is the moment to audit policies, retrain managers, and ensure your practices reflect the law’s expectations.
For more information, or if you need assistance with an employee matter, contact Tanzi at T.cannon@GCbyCannon.com.
This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between General Counsel by Cannon and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material.
This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.