2022 goes out with a bang as December brought historic legislation passed for pregnant workers, Facebook was confronted with anti-discrimination claims concerning its advertising, and Walgreens faces a potential class action lawsuit from former employees. Get the last updates for 2022 before 2023 arrives.
President Biden Signs Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Into Lw
After percolating in the legislature for years, Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) as part of the federal spending package for 2023 on December 22, with President Biden signing the bill into law the following day. The PWFA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for job applicants and employees with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions. In this regard, the PWFA tracks protections provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and several state laws that already bar discrimination against pregnant workers.
Prior to the passage of the PWFA, aggrieved pregnant workers might look to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by making clear that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. However, the PDA lacked express requirements relating to accommodating pregnancy-related limitations. Meanwhile, pregnant workers might receive mixed results seeking to enforce accommodation requirements under the ADA for pregnancy-related conditions. The PWFA thus seeks to fuse the protections of these two existing federal laws into one specific law. With the passage of the PWFA, employers should amend their existing reasonable-accommodation policies to clarify that they apply to employees who are pregnant, have pregnancy-related conditions or have recently given birth.
In the omnibus bill, Congress also included the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (known as the PUMP Act) to expand workplace lactation accommodations.
Meta Facebook Advertising is Biased According to Advocacy Group EEOC Complaint
Real Women in Trucking, which advocates for female truckers, has asked the EEOC to investigate Meta Platforms for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. According to the complaint filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Meta discriminates against women and older people through biased algorithms that disproportionately direct certain Facebook job listing advertisements to younger men.
The group says that Facebook’s algorithm steers listings to almost exclusively men and young people when it thinks jobs such as trucking, construction and manufacturing will be preferred overall by those groups. The same bias reportedly occurs in the other direction when the algorithm thinks listing such as housekeeping and food service will be preferred to younger women. Significantly, this new complaint follows a 2019 settlement of cases making similar claims, pursuant to which Facebook agreed to limit advertisers’ options for targeting ads to specific people or groups. Accordingly, similar results and changes to Facebook’s advertising algorithm may be likely as the complaint proceeds.
Walgreens Faces Potential Class Action over Deficient COBRA Notices
Walgreens has been targeted by several former employees in a proposed class action alleging that the pharmacy chain fails to adequately notify workers of their right to get continuing health care benefits after leaving their jobs. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) requires that certain employers provide written notice to qualifying employees and beneficiaries of how to sign up to continue to receive health coverage benefits under the same terms as their previously existing coverage.
According to the complaint, the former employees received COBRA notices that were not written in a manner that the average plan participant could understand. Rather than receiving one document outlining information on COBRA, the employees reportedly received multiple separately mailed documents that lacked critical information. As a result, the former employees allegedly lost access to their medical coverage, and therefore had to pay out-of-pocket to cover medical expenses. The complaint accuses Walgreens of providing insufficient notices in order to save money by pushing terminated employees from electing COBRA.
The lawsuit seeks reimbursement of any out-of-pocket medical expenses and benefits available to the class of employees under the plan, reinstatement of their right to elect coverage for the proscribed period, nominal damages and attorney fees. The case is Bryant et al. v. Walgreen Co., case number 8:22-cv-02732, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels business on commercial contract matters.
