��������

AMHERST, Mass. – Following an analysis of all 26,656 pregnancy discrimination charges filed with the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) between 2012 and 2016, researchers from the �������� Amherst  (CEE) have released the most comprehensive review of the issue of pregnancy discrimination in American history.

In their new report, “Pregnancy Discrimination at Work: An Analysis of Pregnancy Discrimination Charges,” published online ,  and  detail their many findings about the positions in which discriminated women often find themselves, the industries and management dynamics most frequently responsible for discriminatory actions, and what – if any – compensation women receive when filing charges against such actions.

“Overall, our report reinforces that pregnancy discrimination remains a persistent problem for many women in their workplaces,” the researchers write. “Pregnancy discrimination is partially rooted in business practices and enduring cultural beliefs regarding women, and particularly pregnant women. Though there are legal structures in place intended to protect pregnant workers, it is important to consider whether these policies do enough.”

The researchers found that pregnancy discrimination is a unique form of workplace sex discrimination due to its speed. When discriminating employers learn that an employee is pregnant, she is often fired on the same day.

As with other forms of employer discrimination, the majority of women who experience workplace pregnancy discrimination do not file a formal discrimination charge. While approximately 5,300 pregnancy discrimination charges are filed each year, the researchers say that number represents only about 2% of overall pregnancy discrimination incidents.

Often, the accommodations sought by and withheld from pregnant women are minor; as survey data from the non-profit Childbird Connection shows, 71% of women who reported needing an accommodation simply required more frequent breaks, such as extra bathroom breaks. However, based on the researchers’ investigations, an estimated 250,000 women are denied such accommodations related to their pregnancies each year, which they say is likely a conservative estimate given that around 36% of women who reported needing an accommodation did not ask it from their employer.

Twenty-three percent of pregnancy discrimination charges produce some monetary benefit for the charging party, and 11% result in a required workplace-level change. Nearly 9-out-of-10 (89%) pregnancy charges do not lead to any required change in employer behavior or managerial practices. Only 8% of pregnancy discrimination charges lead to both a monetary benefit for the charging party and some negotiated change in workplace managerial practices.

Overall, charging parties who received monetary compensation for pregnancy charges were awarded $17,976 on average, with a median award of only $8,000.

The researchers found that the majority of pregnancy discrimination charges are filed in only a few industries – health care, retail, and accommodation and food services – these are all industries with high levels of female employment and many low wage employees. After accounting for the gender composition of industries, the pregnancy discrimination rate is, however, higher in male dominated industries such as transportation and warehousing, wholesale trade, utilities and manufacturing. Male dominated industries are less likely to employ a pregnant woman, but more likely to fire her when her pregnancy becomes known, the researchers conclude.

Workplaces also vary in their gender composition and their risk of producing pregnancy discrimination. The researchers found that establishments charged with pregnancy discrimination tend to have a smaller proportion of managers who are female.

“Generally, more male managers is associated with more pregnancy discrimination,” they write. “Thus, it appears that more women in management may be protective against pregnancy discrimination.”

“Existing federal law—the Pregnancy Discrimination Act—does not provide adequate coverage for pregnant workers and leaves pregnant workers vulnerable at work,” the researchers conclude. By contrast, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), passed in 30 states, but not yet at the federal level, could more directly address pregnancy discrimination. “PWFA laws provide important benefits to pregnant workers without significant costs for workers or employers. Passing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is an important first step in closing the legal coverage gap between the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act for pregnant workers and will expand the legal coverage available to women who experience pregnancy discrimination.”

The full report, interactive data visualizations and more information about the Center for Employment Equity, can be found .