التسهيلات الخاصة بالحاملات: دعوى قضائية رفعتها لجنة تكافؤ فرص العمل (EEOC) تسلط الضوء على الثغرات في الامتثال

A new lawsuit from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is putting employers on notice: Relying on Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) eligibility as the final word on pregnancy-related issues can create significant legal risk.

In its case against BestBet Jacksonville, a Florida casino, the EEOC alleges the employer enforced a rigid policy requiring employees to resign if they missed more than two weeks of work and did not qualify for FMLA leave. According to the agency, that approach led to pregnant employees being forced out rather than being accommodated — highlighting a breakdown in how employers apply federal leave and accommodation laws in practice.

At the heart of the case is a compliance gap that many organizations still struggle with: understanding that FMLA is only one piece of a broader legal framework.

“Federal leave laws like the FMLA are the floor. They are not the ceiling,” said Rachel Shaw, president and principal consultant of Shaw HR Consulting in Thousand Oaks, Calif. In other words, even when an employee does not qualify for FMLA — or has exhausted it — the employer’s obligations do not end there.

Sample Toolkit: Navigating the FMLA 

The Missing Step: Accommodation Analysis

Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), employers must assess whether a reasonable accommodation would allow an employee with pregnancy-related limitations to remain working. That requirement is separate from — and often overlooked alongside — leave eligibility.

Shaw noted that when pregnancy-related limitations arise, employers must move beyond a simple leave analysis. “When an employee has pregnancy-related limitations, the employer still has to ask the next question, which is whether there is a reasonable accommodation that would allow that employee to remain employed,” she said. This could include modified duties, schedule changes, or even temporary leave.

The EEOC’s allegations suggest that step never happened in this case. Instead, a policy-driven approach appears to have replaced individualized decision-making — a common but costly mistake.

“Too many employers still operate as though the analysis ends if a worker does not qualify for FMLA,” Shaw said. That mindset, she added, reflects outdated thinking that predates more recent legal developments, particularly the PWFA.

Webinar: The PWFA, ADA and FMLA — How They Interact and What Employers Need to Know 

When Policies Become a Liability

Employers often rely on attendance policies or maximum leave rules to create consistency. But when those policies are applied without flexibility, they can conflict with federal accommodation requirements.

“Policies are important,” Shaw said, “but they cannot replace the legal obligation to engage in an interactive process and assess reasonable accommodation individually.”

That interactive process — familiar to HR teams from ADA compliance — now applies squarely to pregnancy-related conditions as well. The PWFA extends those principles more explicitly, ensuring that pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions receive the same individualized consideration.

Rethinking Leave as the Default

One of the most important shifts for employers is how they frame the problem. Too often, the first and only question is whether an employee can take leave.

Shaw advised a different approach: “Stop thinking only in terms of ‘can this employee take leave’ and start thinking in terms of ‘what does this employee need to stay employed.’”

In many cases, the answer may be relatively simple — additional breaks, reduced lifting, temporary reassignment, or flexible scheduling. And even when leave is appropriate, it should not be treated as unavailable simply because FMLA has been exhausted.

“When leave is needed, it must be considered as part of the accommodation analysis,” Shaw explained, “not treated as categorically unavailable once FMLA or company leave runs out.”

That distinction is critical under the PWFA, which explicitly allows leave as a reasonable accommodation while also encouraging employers to explore alternatives that keep employees working when possible.

The Broader Goal: Maintaining Employment

The EEOC’s position in this case reflects a broader policy objective: preventing employers from pushing pregnant workers out of the workforce prematurely.

“The goal is not to rush pregnant employees out onto leave or out of employment altogether,” Shaw said. “The goal is to maintain employment for a condition we know, from the outset, is temporary.”

That framing aligns pregnancy accommodation more closely with the ADA model, which is focused on preserving employment through flexibility rather than defaulting to leave or separation.

Culture Still Matters

While policies and processes are critical, workplace culture also plays a role in compliance risk. Organizations must clearly set expectations around how pregnancy-related issues are handled. 

“Organizational policies should clearly state that pregnancy and pregnancy-related issues should be treated respectfully and in terms of legal requirements [state, as applicable, and federal] and organizational values,” said Stephen Paskoff, founder and chair of the consulting firm Employment Learning Innovations, Inc. in Atlanta. 

That expectation extends to everyday interactions. “Leaders and team members should understand that they should not engage in pregnancy-related jokes, insults, derogatory, comments tied to pregnancy,” Paskoff said. When such behavior is tolerated, it can escalate beyond a culture issue into a legal one. “If an environment persists in general regarding pregnancy animus, it may be evidence of direct discriminatory intent.”

Practical Takeaways for Employers

For HR leaders, the lesson from the BestBet case is not just about one employer’s missteps,  it is about a broader shift in compliance expectations.

Employers should revisit their policies and practices with a few key principles in mind: FMLA eligibility is only the starting point; accommodation analysis must be individualized; and leave should be one option among many, not the default or the limit.