Menopausal Workers’ Fairness Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2026
Bottom line
The Menopausal Workers' Fairness Act of 2026 aims to provide explicit federal protections and accommodations for employees experiencing menopause-related symptoms, reducing stigma and promoting workplace inclusivity.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a federal right for workers experiencing symptoms related to menopause and the menopause transition to receive reasonable accommodations from their employers, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. It explicitly defines "known limitation" to include a wide range of menopause-related symptoms and outlines specific "Predictable Assessments" for common accommodations that should be simple and straightforward to grant without requiring documentation. The bill also prohibits discrimination against employees requesting or using such accommodations and sets forth enforcement mechanisms by leveraging existing civil rights laws.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill addresses a significant gap in federal law, recognizing menopause as a normal life stage that impacts a large segment of the female workforce. They contend it will foster increased workplace inclusivity, support the retention of experienced employees, and reduce economic and social costs associated with unaddressed menopause symptoms, aligning U.S. protections with those in other countries like the UK.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that existing laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII already offer sufficient protections, and creating a new protected category could lead to an increase in litigation or impose undue burdens on small businesses. They might also raise concerns about the scope of "known limitations" and "Predictable Assessments" potentially making it difficult for employers to deny accommodation requests, even when genuine undue hardship exists.
The bill is moderately complex due to legal definitions and cross-references, but its core provisions are clear. An informed reader can grasp its intent and main mechanisms within 10-15 minutes, which is reasonable for evaluating its impact.
Section 2
Legislative Findings and Purposes
This section lays out the rationale for the bill, stating that current federal law doesn't explicitly protect against menopause discrimination, despite existing protections under other laws. It emphasizes the stigma surrounding menopause, the lack of comprehensive workplace policies, and the significant portion of the U.S. labor force affected. The purposes include expanding access to reasonable accommodations, reducing stigma, aligning protections with women's health understandings, fostering inclusivity, and retaining experienced employees.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings clearly articulate the need for the bill, demonstrating that existing laws are insufficient to address the specific challenges faced by menopausal workers due to stigma and lack of explicit recognition.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that these findings overstate the gaps in existing law, suggesting that the ADA and Title VII already provide avenues for protection, and that explicit legislation might be redundant or create unnecessary new legal frameworks.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for explicit protections against the argument that existing, broader anti-discrimination laws should suffice.
Section 3(4)
Broad Definition of "Known Limitation"
This provision defines "known limitation" broadly to include physical or mental effects related to menopause, menopause transition, symptoms, and related effects, regardless of whether they meet the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It lists numerous examples such as mood changes, hot flashes, sleep disruptions, cognitive issues, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and various physical symptoms. This ensures a wide range of menopause-related issues are covered for accommodation requests.
Section 3(8)
"Predictable Assessments" for Common Accommodations
This section defines "Predictable Assessments" as specific, common modifications that, in virtually all cases, should be considered reasonable accommodations and not impose undue hardship. These include allowing employees to keep and drink water, take additional restroom breaks, alternate between sitting and standing, and take breaks to eat and drink, all as needed. The bill states that the individualized assessment for these modifications should be simple and straightforward, typically not requiring documentation.
Section 4
Prohibited Discriminatory Practices
This section details several unlawful employment practices. It prohibits covered entities from failing to make reasonable accommodations for known menopause-related limitations unless it causes undue hardship. It also forbids requiring an employee to accept an unwanted accommodation, denying employment opportunities based on accommodation needs, forcing an employee to take leave if another reasonable accommodation is possible, and taking adverse action against an employee for requesting or using an accommodation. Additionally, it mandates that medical information related to menopause be treated as confidential.
Section 5
Appropriation for Act Implementation
This section appropriates $4,500,000 to carry out the provisions of the Act. This funding is intended to support the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other relevant agencies in developing regulations, providing guidance, and enforcing the new protections for menopausal workers.
Section 6
Enforcement Mechanisms and Remedies
This section specifies that the Act will be enforced using the same powers, remedies, and procedures as those provided under various existing civil rights acts, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, and the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991. This includes provisions for costs, fees, and damages. It also explicitly prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose unlawful practices or participate in investigations under this Act. A limitation is included, stating that damages may not be awarded if a covered entity demonstrates good faith efforts to provide a reasonable accommodation.
Section 7
Regulatory Authority and Guidance
This section mandates that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issue accessible regulations within one year of the Act's enactment to carry out its provisions. These regulations must include examples of known limitations, reasonable accommodations, and guidance on when employers can reasonably seek supporting documentation. It also requires the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) to issue parallel regulations for congressional employees within six months of the EEOC's regulations.
Defines a "qualified employee" to include individuals whose inability to perform an essential function is temporary or intermittent, or can be performed in the near future, taking into account the episodic nature of the condition, or can be reasonably accommodated.
Section 3(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms early in the bill. However, the specific wording here is crucial for expanding coverage.
Case for: Supporters would argue this expanded definition is critical for menopausal workers, whose symptoms are often episodic and fluctuating. It ensures they are not disqualified from protections simply because their condition is not constant or permanent, reflecting the reality of menopause.
Case against: Opponents might argue this further broadens employer obligations, potentially requiring accommodations for conditions that are highly variable or unpredictable, making workforce planning more challenging.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the pool of employees eligible for protection under the Act.
States that damages under section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a) may not be awarded if the covered entity demonstrates good faith efforts, in consultation with the employee, to identify and make a reasonable accommodation that would provide an equally effective opportunity and not cause undue hardship.
Section 6(g)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative compromise to mitigate employer liability when they act in good faith, often placed in enforcement sections.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision encourages employers to engage in the interactive accommodation process in good faith, knowing that genuine efforts will protect them from certain damages, fostering cooperation rather than immediate litigation.
Case against: Critics might argue that this limitation could weaken the deterrent effect of potential damages, potentially allowing employers to make minimal "good faith" efforts without fully resolving the accommodation issue, thereby disadvantaging employees.
Estimated impact: Reduces potential financial liability for employers who demonstrate good faith, potentially influencing the nature of accommodation negotiations.
Directs that the primary focus in cases under this Act should be on employer compliance and whether discrimination occurred, rather than on extensive analysis or documentation of whether an individual strictly meets the definition of "menopause, menopausal transition, symptoms, and related effects," given their variable and intermittent nature.
Section 6(h)
Why it matters:Rules of construction are technical legal directives, typically placed in general provisions or enforcement sections.
Case for: Supporters argue this rule is essential to prevent employers from using technicalities about medical definitions to deny accommodations, ensuring the focus remains on the practical impact of symptoms and the employer's responsibility to accommodate. It reduces the burden of proof on employees.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this provision could make it harder for employers to challenge questionable accommodation requests, as it de-emphasizes the need for robust medical documentation or strict adherence to definitions, potentially leading to frivolous claims.
Estimated impact: Shifts the burden of proof and evidentiary focus in legal disputes, making it easier for employees to establish a claim.