Melanie Conklin

Grothman, Fitzgerald Oppose Bill Protecting Pregnant Workers

House votes 315-101 for it, with even Congressman Tom Tiffany voting yes.

By , Wisconsin Examiner - Aug 1st, 2021 09:45 am
U.S. Reps. Scott Fitzgerald and Glenn Grothman.

U.S. Reps. Scott Fitzgerald and Glenn Grothman.

Thirty states provide protections for pregnant workers who need basic accommodations in order to retain their jobs while staying healthy.

Wisconsin is not one of them.

But a federal bill that would apply nationwide passed the House on May 14 and is scheduled for a vote in the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions next Tuesday.

The bipartisan compromise version of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) passed on a vote of 315 to 101 in the House. All Wisconsin representatives voted for the bill — even far-right Republican Tom Tiffany — with the exceptions of Reps. Glenn Grothman and Scott Fitzgerald, who voted nay.

The text reads: “This bill prohibits employment practices that discriminate against making reasonable accommodations for qualified employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

More specifically, it makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees unless it would “impose an undue hardship on an entity’s business operation.” It also prohibits employers from taking any “adverse action” in terms of conditions or privileges.

Bloomberg Law has been tracking pregnancy discrimination lawsuits since 2016 when there were 235 federal pregnancy discrimination cases filed. That number has been increasing with a major jump in 2020 to nearly 400 cases. If 2021 continues apace, it would set another new record exceeding 400, Bloomberg Law projects.

A recent case that has received media attention is the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit against Frontier Airlines, which a federal court allowed to move forward, denying Frontier’s motion to dismiss on July 14. The suit alleges that the company discriminated against pregnant and breastfeeding employees by disciplining them for pregnancy-related absences, refusing to allow mothers to pump breast milk on the job and requiring them to take unpaid leave in late pregnancy instead of moving them to ground work. (Frontier Airlines has said that the company does not comment on pending litigation.)

Groups ranging in perspective from the ACLU to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce back the bill protecting pregnant workers.

“Even in 2021, employers can still fire pregnant employees – or force them to quit or take unpaid leave – instead of providing temporary and reasonable accommodations, even as simple as a chair to sit on,” a letter ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Vania Leveille sent to supporters on Thursday.

“This reality forces far too many people, often the sole breadwinners of families, to either lose income or put their pregnancy at risk – impacting low-wage workers, those in physically demanding jobs, and people of color the most. But the PWFA combats this, requiring employers to make those reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers without placing an undue burden on the business.”

The conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce professed  “strong support” for the current compromise version of the bill in a letter sent to senators.

“Employers currently face great uncertainty about whether, and how, they are required to accommodate pregnant workers,” Chamber Vice President Neil L. Bradley wrote in a letter urging senators to sponsor the bill. “The PWFA would clarify an employer’s obligation to accommodate a pregnant employee or applicant with a known limitation that interferes with her ability to perform some essential functions of her position.”

Federal bill protecting pregnant workers advances, without Grothman, Fitzgerald was originally published by the Wisconsin Examiner.

5 thoughts on “Grothman, Fitzgerald Oppose Bill Protecting Pregnant Workers”

  1. GodzillakingMKE says:

    Toxic Tom and the Treason bunch.

  2. kaygeeret says:

    Did either of them give any reason for their votes? Not of course that there is a credible reason, but I would love to hear their specious statement(s)/

  3. iamkms023 says:

    No surprise they have a distinct hate for women.

  4. jkmoch says:

    They are consistent with their own ideologies and certainly out of touch.

  5. Paul Nannis says:

    Wish they could have babies

Leave a Reply

You must be an Urban Milwaukee member to leave a comment. Membership, which includes a host of perks, including an ad-free website, tickets to marquee events like Summerfest, the Wisconsin State Fair and the Florentine Opera, a better photo browser and access to members-only, behind-the-scenes tours, starts at $9/month. Learn more.

Join now and cancel anytime.

If you are an existing member, sign-in to leave a comment.

Have questions? Need to report an error? Contact Us