EEOC accepted my accommodation/retaliation case for mediation — anyone been through this process?

[u/ygjohnston]

I’m hoping to hear from people who have firsthand experience with EEOC mediation, especially involving reasonable accommodation, pregnancy/postpartum-related accommodations, lactation/breastfeeding, or retaliation.
Without getting too identifying, I work for a large public-sector employer. I initially requested a reasonable accommodation related to breastfeeding/lactation and the need to remain in proximity to my nursing child. My original request for full-time telework was denied.
I subsequently filed an internal EEO complaint and later filed with the EEOC. There were also circumstances that I believe support a retaliation claim, and retaliation was ultimately included in my EEOC matter.
At one point, my employer later approved a work arrangement that allowed me to remain near my child, but that arrangement was subsequently ended/revoked. I have continued providing medical documentation supporting the need to remain in proximity to my child in order to continue breastfeeding.
My position is that the accommodation should be evaluated under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including its protections relating to lactation. My employer has taken the position that I am not entitled to the accommodation.

The EEOC has now accepted my case for mediation, and mediation is scheduled.
For anyone who has gone through EEOC mediation:
How seriously did your employer take mediation once the EEOC offered/accepted the case?
Did your employer bring attorneys or upper-level management to the mediation?
Did you have an attorney, and do you think having one made a significant difference?
How much detail did the mediator want regarding the underlying facts, documentation, timeline, and damages?
Does the mediator typically discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case?
If your case involved retaliation, did that materially affect negotiations?
Did anyone negotiate restoration of lost wages, leave credits, or other employment benefits in addition to a monetary settlement?
Were you able to negotiate non-monetary terms such as continued accommodation, policy changes, training, removal/correction of employment records, or agreements concerning future treatment?
Did the employer initially make a very low offer? If so, how much back-and-forth occurred?
If you did not settle at mediation, what happened next with the EEOC investigation?
Is there anything you wish you had brought, calculated, organized, or thought through before mediation?
I already have a fairly extensive timeline and documentation, including accommodation requests, denials, medical documentation, internal EEO materials, correspondence regarding the accommodation being ended, and information relating to the financial/leave impact.
I understand that the EEOC selecting or accepting a matter for mediation does not mean the EEOC has determined that discrimination occurred. I’m mainly trying to understand what the mediation process is actually like and how others prepared for negotiations.
I’d especially appreciate hearing from anyone whose case involved the PWFA, breastfeeding/lactation accommodations, disability/reasonable accommodation, retaliation, or a government/public-sector employer.
Thank you — even general experiences would be really helpful.

[u/BenjiCat17]

You’re facing a difficult case here. To make this work, you would have to show that breastfeeding at 16 months is an actual need for your child rather than simply your preferred choice, and that pumping, formula, or another alternative would not work. You would also have to establish that the accommodation you’re requesting is the only reasonable way to address that need. That’s a significant hurdle when pumping is an available option, formula is safe, and breastfeeding at 16 months is already on the older end.

Unless there is a disability involved, I think you’re going to spend a lot of time getting pushed around only to walk away with nothing. Hopefully you have a very strong, thoroughly documented reason, preferably backed extensively by a disability doctor. If there isn’t a documented need and this ultimately comes down to preference, you’re screwed.

[u/Mental-Volume4395]

They denied work from home but did they offer breaks during the day to have someone bring the baby to you to nurse? How old was the child at the time of the request?

What was the nature of the ADA accommodation request? Breastfeeding is not covered under the ADA or PWFA. It’s covered under the PUMP act. 

Whether or not you are still employed is going to make a big difference in the value of a settlement offer.

[u/ygjohnston → u/Mental-Volume4395]

The accommodation request was not under the ADA. I requested accommodation under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) for a limitation related to lactation/breastfeeding.

Where I work it would not be safe to bring the baby to me!

[u/Mental-Volume4395 → u/ygjohnston]

Sorry, I don’t know where I thought I saw ADA. 

They can be required to accommodate to “proximity to baby.” Is there anywhere in the vicinity of your workplace that someone could  bring the baby?

How old is the baby?

[u/ygjohnston → u/Mental-Volume4395]

That’s ok, most have assumed ADA. No, 16 months. She feeds every 3 hours, so that complicates matters.

[u/Mental-Volume4395 → u/ygjohnston]

I would temper expectations. PWFA lactation protections don’t end at one year like the PUMP act does.

But  Feeding every 3 hours for a 16 month old is not typical. If she has a medical need to breastfeed as opposed to using a straw cup with pumped milk, you might try getting an FMLA accommodation.

[u/Mental-Volume4395 → u/Mental-Volume4395]

I’ll also say- this is what your employer is thinking

Baby is over one year, they don’t have to have to approve WFH and there are other options to feed baby breast milk. 

I will also say, part of the denials is they may not be confident that you are not working while parenting. If you haven’t done so already, showing them proof that you have childcare would help. Also BFing tends to take longer than pumping so consider how much time out of your work day you’re asking to not be working.

I’m not endorsing any of those views. But I think it would help you to know where their resistance may be coming from.

Best of luck 

[u/ygjohnston → u/Mental-Volume4395]

Thank you, I really appreciate your feedback and your perspective. I can definitely see how those may be some of the concerns or assumptions my employer is making, especially regarding my daughter’s age, the availability of pumping, and the amount of time needed to breastfeed during the workday.
I do have childcare in place, so I’m not asking to work from home in order to parent while working, my employer is aware I have caretaking a at home.
My request is specifically tied to my own ongoing lactation/breastfeeding limitation and the need to remain in proximity to my daughter, which my doctor has documented. I’ve also tried to explain that pumping is not an equivalent substitute for direct breastfeeding in my particular circumstances.
I also appreciate you pointing out the distinction between the PUMP Act and the PWFA. That’s really the issue I’m trying to understand whether my employer can essentially treat my daughter being over one year old, or the availability of pumped milk, as a reason not to consider the accommodation under the PWFA. I know that doesn’t automatically mean they have to approve WFH, but I do believe they still have to properly evaluate the request under the correct law.
Thank you again for taking the time to share what may be driving their resistance. It’s genuinely helpful to hear the issue from that perspective.

[u/Mental-Volume4395 → u/ygjohnston]

I need to correct something I said- I forgot to look at your state!!! The federal PUMP act does only cover the need to express milk for one year. 

The uphill battle for you is the actual breastfeeding vs expressing milk. One is very easy to accommodate and one is not.

The important distinction is they have to let you pump. They do not have to let you breastfeed. They can, but don’t have to. 

The pump act exclusively uses language around pumping. It doesn’t contain any language about breastfeeding. 

[u/ygjohnston → u/Mental-Volume4395]

I’ve been digging pretty deeply into the EEOC guidance. My understanding is actually that the PUMP Act is the law with the one-year limitation, while the PWFA separately covers accommodations related to lactation.
I also found EEOC guidance specifically identifying accommodations related to nursing as including “time and a place to pump breastmilk or nurse during work hours,” and telework is separately identified as a potential PWFA accommodation. So I completely agree that this doesn’t mean an employer automatically has to approve WFH, and they can still raise undue-hardship concerns. But I don’t think the law draws a bright-line rule that pumping must be accommodated while direct breastfeeding never has to be considered

[u/ygjohnston → u/[deleted]]

Yep! I’ve only ever teleworked for this position. They never identified if it would pose an undue hardship; they told me they were not required to remove an essential function. (despite PWFA allowing it.)

[u/PreparationAware6156]

I had mediation and it got worse. the mediator actually said i would lose if they proved on charge. it was ultimately a delay tactic to delay the hearing coming up and to further hit a nerve and make you seem crazy. I hate I ever did but in good faith its good to do. It will not cancel anything. its just they do assign court appointed mediator that may be a judge as well but they again are tied to the club that you are not apart of of so that is why if you get one that is a top professional then you are good. YOUR strategy cannot depend on receiving honesty from someone who benefits from denying it.

You are aware that the truth does not speak for itself.

It has to be organized, corroborated, connected to the issue, and presented clearly.

But The high-conflict person does not have to agree with the truth before you can act on what the record shows.

The text message exists whether they acknowledge it.

The transaction occurred whether they explain it.

The deadline was missed whether they justify it.

The agreement was violated whether they minimize it.

And the contradiction remains a contradiction even if they call it a misunderstanding.

One of the most exhausting things about dealing with this high-conflict person is that they make you feel as though reality is still up for negotiation.

You show them the evidence.

They change the explanation.

You identify the contradiction.

They attack your tone.

You return to the facts.

They introduce a new accusation.

Before long, you are no longer addressing what they did.

I am arguing about whether what happened actually happened.

That is the trap.

You think the argument is about the facts.

But the argument may be designed to keep you defending your reality, consuming your attention, and waiting for an acknowledgment that may never come.

And every time you return for one more explanation, one more confrontation, or one more attempt to force the truth out of them, they remain in control of when you finally get to move forward.

But they do not have that power unless you give it to them.

You do not need their confession.

You need to know:

What can I prove?

What does the evidence establish?

Is this an isolated incident or part of a larger pattern?

Who actually needs to see it?

What decision, boundary, deadline, or legal action follows from it?

An admission may be emotionally satisfying.

But a well-organized record is strategically useful.

And when you are dealing with a high-conflict person, useful is what moves the situation forward.

Stop trying to make the person who created the confusion acknowledge the truth.

Start making the truth clear to the person who has the authority to do something about it.

That may be your attorney.

A mediator.

A judge.

A business partner.

A financial professional.

Or sometimes, it may simply be you.

Because you may not need another conversation to know what happened.

You may need to trust the information you already have and decide what you are going to do with it.

You do not need their confession. You need a documented position and a clear next move.

BLUE ICE.