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. It 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 a regulation to implement it, which was finalized on April 15, 2024. 

Ten days later, extremists began challenging the regulation 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 different cases challenging the implementation of the PWFA regulation brought by: 

1. Seventeen states led by Tennessee and Alabama, 
2. The states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and 
3. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious employers.

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 regulation 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 while the case is pending and to eventually cancel the rule permanently.

• Tennessee et. al., v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

In April 2024, seventeen states challenged the EEOC’s regulation implementing the PWFA, which clarifies that employers must  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 in support the PWFA regulation. The brief argued that the court should uphold the EEOC’s implementation of the PWFA and explained the importance of the PWFA regulation to small businesses.

On June 14, 2024, the District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the state’s demand to stop the th PFWA regulation from taking effect, finding the states were not injured by the rule.

Read more about this decision.

The plaintiffs took the case to the Eighth Circuit, asking the Court to bring back their challenge to the PWFA. On August 30, 2024, Small Business Majority, Main Street Alliance, and the American Sustainable Business Council filed another amicus brief explaining the importance of the PWFA regulation.

• Louisiana and Mississippi v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

On May 13, 2024, Louisiana and Mississippi also challenged the EEOC’s new regulation implementing the PWFA, alleging violations of federalism, state sovereignty, freedom of speech, and religious liberty protections.

Shortly after that, 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 the  PWFA regulation 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 PWFA regulation amid litigation attacks from state Attorneys General. 

On June 17, 2024, the District Court of the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiff’s request to stop the regulation while the case was ongoing and prevent 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 authority in implementing the PWFA through regulations that required accommodations for purely elective abortions. This decision temporarily stops the regulation and 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.

Read the decision here.

“The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act ensures that people who are pregnant do not have to choose between their jobs and their health. The Attorneys General who are trying to dismantle the Equal Opportunity Commission’s regulation implementing the policy because the rule protects workers who need abortion care are threatening real harm to businesses and their workers across America,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward

“The regulation provides easy-to-interpret guidance that clarifies how to comply with the PWFA when employees request accommodations, including time off, during pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, including abortion,” she added. 

On November 19, 2024, we filed a new brief highlighting the importance of the regulation’s clarity to employers and the difficulties that would be caused by the Plaintiffs’ request to remove abortion from the regulation’s list of medical conditions.