Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Pregnant Employee Protections - New Requirements for Employers

Multimedia, Client Alert

Two new laws were recently passed providing additional protections for pregnant employees in the workplace. These statutes are: (1) the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (otherwise known as the Pump Act), and (2) the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. These statutes contain the biggest changes for pregnant employees since the implementation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The requirements of these statutes will require employers with more than 15 employees to implement new policies for their handbooks. More information on flat fee options for these policies is provided below.

Generally, the PUMP Act requires employers to set aside a temporary or permanent private place (other than a restroom) for the purpose of allowing employees to express breastmilk. Employers must provide employees with this break time, and this time must be paid if other paid break times are provided. This Act went into effect on December 29, 2022.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act contains the biggest changes for pregnant employees. This Act, which begins on June 27, 2023, requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations” to a pregnant employee’s known limitations related to pregnancy or childbirth. Importantly, these limitations do not need to rise to the level of a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to be accommodated. This will provide almost guaranteed coverage for pregnant employees.

A few examples provided by the DOL include: the ability to sit or drink water; receive closer parking; have flexible hours; receive appropriately sized uniforms and safety apparel; receive additional break time to use the bathroom, eat, and rest; take leave or time off to recover from childbirth; work-from-home; and be excused from strenuous activities and/or activities that involve exposure to compounds not safe for pregnancy. However, this Act specifically states an employer cannot require an employee to take leave (paid or unpaid) if another reasonable accommodation can be provided that would let the employee keep working.

Similar to the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations unless they would cause an “undue hardship” on the employer’s operations. An “undue hardship” is a significant difficulty or expense for the employer. This is a high standard to meet that should involve an attorney’s review and oversight.

These changes will require the implementation of two new policies for the vast majority of employers (more than 15 employees). Therefore, I am offering a bundle option for our clients. Clients can receive both policies for a flat fee of $500, which can include minor customization specific to the employer’s requirements. This flat fee will also include an overview telephone conference for implementation of the new requirements. In addition, if a client has not had their handbook audited in the last year, we recommend a general handbook audit to ensure compliance with all new employment laws and regulations. We will offer a flat fee that includes both the handbook audit and the two new pregnant employee policies for $1500.

Employment Law After Hours published a YouTube Podcast further explaining these statutes and their requirements. Click below to view the episode featuring BMD Labor & Employment Partner, Bryan Meek

For more information, contact Bryan at bmeek@bmdllc.com or 330.253.5586.


ODM to Implement Medicaid Work Requirements: What Providers and Medicaid Expansion Recipients Need to Know

The Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) has submitted a waiver to impose work requirements for Medicaid expansion recipients. If approved, the new eligibility criteria will take effect on January 1, 2026. A federal public comment period is open until April 7, 2025.

Ohio Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Gender-Affirming Care

On March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County ruled that Ohio’s House Bill (HB) 68, which restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking gender-affirming care, violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment and is therefore unenforceable. The court found that the law unlawfully interferes with parental rights and medical decision-making. The case, Moe v. Yost, has been remanded, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost intends to appeal.

HHS Revokes Public Comment Requirement on Certain Policy Changes

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has revoked the Richardson Waiver, eliminating the requirement for public notice and comment on certain policy changes. This decision allows HHS to implement new policies more quickly, potentially affecting healthcare funding rules like Medicaid work requirements. While it speeds up policymaking, it also reduces opportunities for stakeholder input, raising concerns over transparency and unintended consequences for healthcare providers, states, and patients.

Don't Get Caught Dazed and Confused: Another Florida Court Weighs in on Employer Obligations to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use

A Florida trial court ruled in Giambrone v. Hillsborough County that employers may need to accommodate off-duty medical marijuana use under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). This contrasts with prior rulings and raises new compliance challenges for employers. With the case on appeal, now is the time to review workplace drug policies.

Corporate Transparency Act to be Re-evaluated

Recent federal rulings have impacted the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. While reporting requirements were briefly reinstated, FinCEN has now paused enforcement and is reevaluating the CTA. Businesses are no longer required to submit reports until further guidance is issued. For updates and legal counsel, contact BMD Member Blake Gerney.