Abortion Provisions of Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Rule Blocked in Two States

A Louisiana district court granted Louisiana and Mississippi temporary relief from complying with provisions of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act rule that would have required time off and other accommodations for workers who have undergone abortions.

The ruling came soon after an Arkansas district court rejected an attempt by 17 other states to block the rule nationwide.

We’ve gathered articles on the news from SHRM Online and other outlets.

Lawsuits Challenged Rule

One lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi and another lawsuit brought by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University, and two Catholic dioceses challenged the rule’s statement that abortions are pregnancy-related conditions under the act. The preliminary injunction in the consolidated lawsuits blocked the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from enforcing the abortion provision of its rule against the plaintiff organizations and two states for the duration of the lawsuit.

(AP)

Reactions to Decision

“The court has left some pregnant workers who need abortion-related accommodations to fend for themselves,” stated Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president of workplace justice and education at the National Women’s Law Center, headquartered in Washington, D.C.

However, lawyer Laura Wolk Slavis, who represented the Catholic groups, said the EEOC “hijacked a bipartisan protection for expecting mothers and their babies, imposing a national abortion-accommodation mandate” and said that the ruling was a “crucial step” in restoring the law “to its purpose.”

(Fox News)

Nationwide Injunction Denied in Separate Lawsuit

In a separate lawsuit, an Arkansas district court declined to block the rule. In that lawsuit, Tennessee and 16 other states challenged the aspects of the regulation dealing with abortion.

Pausing the regulation would not eliminate the question of whether the act itself requires state employers to accommodate elective abortions that are illegal under state law, the court stated.

“States do not have a monopoly on regulating workplace accommodations or abortion,” the court said. It noted that the EEOC has regulated the workplace for almost 60 years and said the regulation tracks the statute. The court concluded that because the states lacked standing to sue and hadn’t shown a likelihood of irreparable harm, the court didn’t need to decide whether they had shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it might be brought again.

(SHRM Online)

States That Sued

The states opposing the rule before the Arkansas district court were: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

They cited the compliance costs to state governments and infringement on states’ sovereignty because laws in many of the plaintiff states have prohibited or limited abortion with rare exceptions.

(States’ lawsuit and Bloomberg)

Coalition of Other States Defended Rule

New York Attorney General Letitia James announced on May 23 a coalition of 23 state attorneys general who support the rule.  

“At a time when reproductive health care services are at risk, it is critical to ensure that workers who obtain abortion care are protected by this law,” James said. “The law makes it clear that workers should not have to choose between their health and their job. Striking down these regulations would put workers across the country at risk.”

In addition to New York, the states defending the regulation were: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.

(New York attorney general’s press release)