EEOC Regulations On Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act Partially Enjoined Before Implementation

Topics: Court Decisions, Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation, Employee Leave

Earlier this spring, we published an article detailing the highlights of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) new 408-page regulations on the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”).

The regulations include a provision that requires employers to consider a reasonable accommodation of an employee who chooses to have or has had an abortion. The regulations go into effect today, June 18, 2024.

However, yesterday afternoon, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction that partially blocks the EEOC’s PWFA regulations from taking effect in certain states. The United States Conference for Catholic Bishops, other various Catholic-affiliated organizations, and the states of Louisiana and Mississippi filed a lawsuit seeking to prohibit the enforcement of the provisions of the EEOC’s PWFA regulations that require employers to consider reasonable accommodations for an employee who has an abortion.  

Yesterday, in ruling on the preliminary injunction, Judge David Joseph held that the regulations are unconstitutional because they usurp the role of Congress and improperly interfere with states’ rights to regulate abortion. The plaintiffs had argued that the regulations run counter to the SCOTUS decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade.

The injunction expressly states that it only covers the states of Louisiana and Mississippi. Therefore, the EEOC’s PWFA regulations are not currently enjoined in California and effective today, California employers must comply with all aspects of the regulations, including considering reasonable accommodations for employees who have or choose to have an abortion, unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship.  

CDF will continue to keep you updated on these developments to the extent they trigger new issues for California employers.  

More information about the Louisiana case can be found here.