Employment Update: Illinois Enacts Pregnancy Fairness Act
Effective January 1, 2015, Illinois women will enjoy greater protections under the law because of the Illinois’ Pregnancy Fairness Act. By amending the existing Illinois Human Rights Act, this new law has made pregnancy a protected class.
Pregnancy is now a protected class
As defined in the statute, "pregnancy" means "pregnancy, childbirth, or medical or common conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth." See 775 ILCS 5/1-103(L-5). Thus, the Act covers not only the gestation period but also the period following childbirth.
Generally, the Act makes it illegal to discriminate in hiring and employment against pregnant workers and those affected by a medical or common condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. 775 ILCS 5/2-102(I). While employers will be required to provide a broader range of accommodations to pregnant employees including assistance with manual labor, an employer can refuse to accommodate an employee where it can show that doing so presents an undue hardship on the ordinary operations of the business. See 775 ILCS 5/2-102(J). Perhaps, one of the most radical departures from existing law is the notion that the required 12 weeks of leave under the FMLA may not be sufficient under the Pregnancy Fairness Act; under this new schema, existing FMLA and ADA requirements may be the floor rather than the ceiling.
This applies to you
While other federal laws like the FMLA have varying requirements depending on the size of the employer, this Act does not. There is no exemption under the Pregnancy Fairness Act for employers with fewer than 50 employees.
Men Need Not Apply?
Notably, since the Act discusses these rights through the lens of pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions, the Act does not appear to expand the protections given to expectant fathers. While additional protections for men as well as women would seem to be within the spirit of the Act, whether men are covered remains a largely open question and, likely, will be the subject of litigation in the future.
For tips on how to comply and more information regarding the changes, click here.
- 11th Circuit Court Clarifies Harvey v Geico Florida Supreme Court Decision on Evidence of Claimant and Claimant Counsel Action in Bad Faith Case
- Finally! Discovery Harassment of Top-Level Corporate Officers is Curtailed
- Limitations for Policyholders Seeking Coverage in Employment-Related BIPA Cases
- Vaccine Mandates in the Workplace Are Spreading
- The Death of Impartiality - "Dr. Death," Reptilian Tactics, and Fighting Juror Bias
- Considerations That Employers Should be Mindful of as Employees Return to the Office
- A Win for Policyholders Seeking Coverage in a BIPA Class Action Suit
- Reasonable Disagreement or Fraud? Competing Estimates of Property Damage in First Party Claims
- Malpractice Mayhem: An Insurer's Standing to Sue Counsel Retained to Defend Its Insured
- Prejudgment Interest Now a Reality in Illinois
- Professional Liability
- Class Action
- Insurance & Reinsurance Litigation & Counseling
- Insurance Coverage
- Complex Commercial Litigation
- Cyber Risk & Liability
- Toxic Tort
- Professional Development
- Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Litigation
- Product Liability
- Construction Litigation & Counseling
- Social Media & Privacy
- Discrimination, Harassment & Hostile Workplace Claims
- Workers' Compensation
- Employment Litigation & Counseling
- Medical Negligence & Healthcare Liability