When the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act—better known as the PUMP Act—took effect on April 28, writer and sexual health expert Martha Kempner was reminded of the time she had to pump her breast milk in an office building of the U.S. House of Representatives.
“I was about to speak before Congress and I did not want to start leaking during my presentation,” recalls Kempner, creator of the Sex on Wednesday reproductive justice newsletter. “Another time I had a job where I had to cover a glass door with paper to get some pumping privacy. It was crazy, but if you can’t express your milk when you need to, it becomes physically painful. It can also make your milk supply go down.”
The PUMP Act passed with bipartisan support in December 2022 and was signed by President Joe Biden in December. It builds on the thirteen-year-old Break Time For Nursing Mothers Act by extending pumping rights to approximately nine million salaried workers who do not earn overtime pay and guarantees them a clean, private space—apart from a toilet stall—to express milk when they need to.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the act applies to most employees, regardless of how many workers are employed by their company—railway, motor coach, and flight crews are currently the only groups that are not covered by the law—and gives nursing workers one year of protections unless the employer can demonstrate that compliance would cause it “undue hardship.”
Although that standard is admittedly vague, Sarah Brafman, national policy director at A Better Balance, an advocacy organization that supports stronger federal, state, and local protections for working parents, tells The Progressive that the precepts are meant to ensure that employers and employees can reach an understanding that is tailored to the specific needs of both parties.
“A broad coalition of groups—organized labor, faith leaders, maternal and public health advocates, civil rights proponents, and representatives of the business community—spent years debunking the idea that this would be onerous for employers,” Brafman says. “We stressed that pumping at work is a public health issue. We also helped Congress members understand that the law can’t be overly prescriptive since different workers have different needs and some people will require more time, or more frequent pumping, than others. We showed legislators that the law works best when it is flexible and is geared to the individual.”
“It’s ironic that some of the same people who want us to remain pregnant no matter what, oppose workplace accommodation to ensure healthy pregnancies.”
Flexibility and a non-formulaic approach to employee concerns is also central to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which takes effect on June 27. Like the PUMP Act, the PWFA builds on existing law. In fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency responsible for compliance with the PWFA, stresses that “discrimination against workers on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” has long been illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
But the PWFA goes one step further by protecting workers at companies with fifteen or more employees and guaranteeing that pregnant staff can get temporary accommodations so that they can stay on the job. And while there is no definitive list of “reasonable” adaptations, advocates are quick to enumerate the most commonly requested: More frequent bathroom breaks; flexible work hours; time off to go to pre-and-post-natal medical appointments; the right to sit, eat, or drink while working; parking spots closer to the entryway; lower carrying or lifting obligations; and protection from exposure to toxic or hazardous materials.
Before the PWFA passed, thirty states and five cities including the District of Columbia, mandated these types of accommodations. They have proven to be extremely popular with both employers and employees, allowing workers to keep their jobs and minimizing turnover.
Though the PWFA, like PUMP, passed with bipartisan support, several Republican lawmakers have been vocal opponents of the Fairness Act. Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, called the PWFA “a win for Big Government.” Other opponents, including Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, said that he worried that the bill “could force religious employers to provide accommodations that arise from an abortion” in violation of their free exercise of religion.
“For the most part, the changes pregnant workers request are pretty small,” Kempner says. “Still, it’s ironic that some of the same people who want us to remain pregnant no matter what, oppose workplace accommodation to ensure healthy pregnancies. The opposition to the PWFA from some Republicans is an example of their complete lack of empathy.”
More, of course, remains to be done, and the coalition that worked to promote passage of both bills is continuing to organize support for greater workplace protections for families. “The protections we’ve won to date are small slices of the pie,” Brafman says. “Every worker should have paid sick time. Every worker should have access to paid medical and family leave.”
“The PWFA and PUMP Acts are groundbreaking,” she adds, “but they are not endpoints.”
Workers who want more information about the PUMP or Pregnant Workers Fairness Act can call the Better Balance Helpline at 1-833-633-3222, Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m Eastern Time.
Workers whose request for an on-site accommodation has been denied can file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The website is www.eeoc.gov/field-office. Workers can also call 1-866-408-8075.