Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
Menopausal Workers’ Fairness Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 9 Democratic cosponsors · See all 9 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Menopausal Workers' Fairness Act of 2026. It aims to provide reasonable accommodations for workers experiencing symptoms related to menopause and the menopause transition. The bill requires employers to make these accommodations unless it causes an undue hardship on the business. It outlines specific low-burden accommodations, such as allowing water consumption or restroom breaks, that generally do not require extensive documentation. Additionally, the legislation prohibits retaliation against employees who request accommodations and sets up enforcement mechanisms through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Yes· 3 of 21
- Scored +9
Would women be better off under this?
Specifically designed to eliminate discrimination and provide health accommodations for women experiencing menopause.
- Scored +8
Would people in middle age be better off under this?
Directly benefits workers aged 45-64 experiencing menopause transition.
- Scored +7
Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated?
Specifically addresses workplace discrimination and health needs related to a biological process experienced primarily by women.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increases potential for lawsuits and mandates new workplace accommodation requirements.
- Scored -3
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Includes an explicit waiver of 11th Amendment state immunity.
- Scored -2
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Increases compliance burdens and potential legal liability for employers with 15 or more employees.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Access to Simple Accommodations: Section 3(8) establishes predictable assessments for common-sense adjustments—like allowing employees to keep water nearby, take restroom breaks, sit or stand as needed, and eat or drink during breaks. These measures make daily work life manageable without requiring burdensome documentation.
-
Protection Against Forced Leave: Section 4(4) stops employers from forcing qualified employees to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided instead. This protects workers' economic security and allows them to stay on the job.
-
Confidentiality of Medical Information: Section 4(6) requires employers to treat information regarding an employee's medical condition or history as a confidential medical record kept in separate files. This safeguards workers' personal privacy in the workplace.
-
Protection from Retaliation and Coercion: Section 6(f) makes it illegal for anyone to discriminate, coerce, intimidate, threaten, or harass employees who exercise their rights under this Act or participate in related investigations. This holds bosses accountable and protects workers who speak up.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Potential Business Hardships: Section 4(1) requires employers to make reasonable accommodations unless they can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business. Smaller businesses might struggle with operational adjustments or staffing coverage during frequent employee breaks.
-
Administrative and Legal Burdens: Section 6 outlines extensive remedies, legal procedures, costs, fees, and damages involving multiple federal acts and courts. This complex legal framework could lead to adversarial disputes and litigation between workers and employers.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would women be better off under this? — Specifically designed to eliminate discrimination and provide health accommodations for women experiencing menopause. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Directly benefits workers aged 45-64 experiencing menopause transition. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Protects low-income women from losing jobs due to health limitations that now require reasonable accommodation. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides job security and accommodation rights for middle-class women. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Broadens the definition of a 'known limitation' that requires accommodation, regardless of whether it meets the strict ADA disability definition. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Provides systemic protections for African American women in the workforce. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Provides systemic protections for Asian American women in the workforce. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Provides systemic protections for Hispanic American women in the workforce. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Includes protections for those with induced menopause via surgery or medical treatments, which may include some trans individuals. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Provides systemic protections for Native American women in the workforce. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Provides protections for older workers who may still be experiencing late-stage menopausal effects. Would union members be better off under this? — Adds another layer of legal protection for unionized women regarding workplace accommodations. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides systemic protections for White American women in the workforce. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides legal protections for high-income women in the workforce. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases potential for lawsuits and mandates new workplace accommodation requirements.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Specifically addresses workplace discrimination and health needs related to a biological process experienced primarily by women. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Expands the concept of reasonable accommodations beyond the strict definitions of the ADA for menopausal symptoms. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Protects the economic security of women by preventing adverse employment actions due to menopause.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Requires medical information regarding menopause to be treated as confidential medical records kept in separate files. Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands federal employment law requirements for covered entities including state employees. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Includes an explicit waiver of 11th Amendment state immunity.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Allows employees to manage health limitations related to menopause without risking economic security.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Supports retention of experienced employees and reduces productivity losses tied to early retirement. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Increases compliance burdens and potential legal liability for employers with 15 or more employees.
- 10/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Gabe AmoDemocrat · Rhode Island
Yvette ClarkeDemocrat · New York
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Seth MoultonDemocrat · Massachusetts
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Deborah RossDemocrat · North Carolina
Emily RandallDemocrat · Washington
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida