| The PWFA was enacted to ensure that workplaces provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers so they do not have to choose between their jobs and their health. The law seeks to protect pregnant employees from workplace discrimination and requires employers to make appropriate accommodations similar to those made for employees with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
After the PWFA was enacted, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) developed policies to implement it, finalized on April 15, 2024. Ten days later, extremists began challenging the rule and the inclusion of abortion as a pregnancy-related medical condition requiring accommodation, aiming to restrict reproductive healthcare access post-Roe v. Wade. Democracy Forward has represented the Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, and American Sustainable Business Council in three different cases challenging the implementation of the PWFA brought by:
Through these cases, extremists challenge the inclusion of abortion as one of the medical conditions related to pregnancy that may require accommodation. These challenges are part of a slew of lawsuits filed since the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade to restrict access to reproductive health care further. Their main claim is that EEOC’s rule exceeded its statutory authority under the PWFA in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), implicating the Major Questions Doctrine. The states and institutions challenging the EEOC in each case are asking the court to stop the EEOC from enforcing the abortion accommodation rule against the suing states and to eventually cancel the rule permanently. |
In April 2024, seventeen states challenged the EEOC’s new final rule implementing the PWFA, which requires employers to accommodate “known limitations” arising from a worker’s “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The plaintiffs in this case are Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. On May 21, 2024, a coalition of Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, and the American Sustainable Business Council, which collectively represent thousands of small businesses, and represented by Democracy Forward, submitted a friend of the court brief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The brief argued that the court should uphold the EEOC’s implementation of the PWFA and explained the importance of the PWFA to small businesses. On June 14, 2024, the District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the state’s demand to stop the rule interpreting the PFWA from taking effect, finding the states were not injured by the rule. On September 4, 2024, we filed a brief to the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, on behalf of Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, and American Sustainable Business Council highlighting the importance of the regulations interpreting the PWFA to business.
On May 13, 2024, Louisiana and Mississippi also challenged the EEOC’s new final rule implementing the PWFA, alleging violations of federalism, state sovereignty, freedom of speech, and religious liberty protections. Shortly thereafter, on May 22, 2024, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lake Charles, The Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lafayette, and the Catholic University of America also challenged rule implementing the PWFA, and alleging violation of freedom of speech and religious liberty protections. The case was filed in the same court as the Louisiana and and Mississippi v. EEOC, and the two cases were combined. On June 10, 2024, a coalition of Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, and the American Sustainable Business Council, which collectively represent thousands of small businesses, and represented by Democracy Forward, submitted a friend of the court brief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, arguing that the court should uphold the EEOC implementation of the PWFA amid litigation attacks from state Attorneys General. On June 17, 2024, the District Court of the Western District of Louisiana granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the EEOC from enforcing the portion of the rule mandating workplace accommodation for elective abortions in Louisiana and Mississippi. The court decided that the EEOC had exceeded its statutory authority in implementing the PWFA by requiring accommodation for purely elective abortions. This decision temporarily stops the enforcement of the abortion accommodation requirement in Louisiana and Mississippi and against the private religious employers who challenged the rule until a final judgment is made. On June 15, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the court to change or cancel its decision to stop the rule’s effects on elective abortions. The DOJ argues that a recent Supreme Court decision in Murthy v. Missouri changed the legal landscape, showing that the states challenging the EEOC’s rule do not have legal standing in this case. If the court does not entirely revoke the preliminary injunction, the DOJ requests that it be limited to only the parties directly involved in the lawsuit — Louisiana and Mississippi as employers only, rather than all employers in those states.
|
Key Documents
- Brief in Support of Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, and American Sustainable Business Council/Network - District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (5/24/24) (PDF) (PDF / 271 KB)
- Brief in Support of Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, and American Sustainable Business Council/Network - Western District of Louisiana (6/10/24) (PDF) (PDF / 350 KB)
- Brief in Support of Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, and American Sustainable Business Council - 8th Circuit (9/4/24) (PDF) (PDF / 410 KB)