A U.S. district judge has ruled that the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) exceeded its authority when it inserted abortion accommodations into the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) — and must now remove them.
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- A U.S. District judge said changes made to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act by the Biden administration were ‘unlawful’ and must be removed.
- The lawsuit was brought by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which had originally supported the Act as written and passed in 2023.
- The USCCB argued that if Congress had intended to include abortion in the PWFA in 2023, it would have been clear about it when enacted.
- The USCCB noted that abortion is not related to pregnancy or childbirth “because it intentionally ends” and “prevents” both.
- Another judge ruled similarly last month about the Act, regarding Catholic employers.
THE DETAILS:
U.S. District Judge David Joseph of the Western District of Louisiana ruled that the EEOC exceeded its authority in making changes to the PWFA, taking a similar stance to a ruling from another judge earlier this year. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) filed suit, with Joseph ruling in the USCCB’s favor.
Joseph wrote that the EEOC “exceeded its statutory authority to implement the PWFA and, in doing so, both unlawfully expropriated the authority of Congress and encroached upon the sovereignty of the Plaintiff States under basic principles of federalism.”
He added that the EEOC must remove the abortion accommodation requirements and rewrite the PWFA rule. He agreed with the Plantiffs’ assertion that if Congress had wanted to include abortion, “it would have spoken clearly when enacting the statute, particularly given the enormous social, religious, and political importance of the abortion issue in our nation at this time.”
In their arguments against the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion, the USCCB said abortion is not part of pregnancy or childbirth. “And it is not ‘related’ to pregnancy or childbirth as those terms are used in the PWFA because it intentionally ends pregnancy and prevents childbirth,” they said.
THE BACKSTORY:
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) was enacted in June of 2023, meant to address pregnancy discrimination by closing the legal gap between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). Pro-life groups, including the USCCB, initially supported the act, but the Biden administration’s EEOC quickly declared that abortion must be included under the “pregnancy-related medical conditions” that the PWFA ensures are covered.
The USCCB had previously issued a statement slamming the rule change as subverting the intention of the law.
“We supported the bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act because it enhanced the protection of pregnant mothers and their preborn children, which is something that we have encouraged Congress to prioritize. The Act is pro-worker, pro-family, and pro-life. It is a total distortion to use this law as a means for advancing abortion, and the complete opposite of needed assistance for pregnant mothers,” the statement read, adding:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s proposed interpretation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to include accommodations for obtaining an abortion is wrong and contrary to the text, legislative history, and purpose of the Act, which is to help make it possible for working mothers to remain gainfully employed, if desired, while protecting their health and that of their preborn children.
We are hopeful that the EEOC will be forced to abandon its untenable position when public comments submitted on this regulation demonstrate that its interpretation would be struck down in court.
Following a lawsuit from the Catholic Benefits Association and the Diocese of Bismarck — which claimed the revised rule violated their religious freedom — North Dakota Judge Daniel Traynor made a similar ruling. Though Traynor had issued a temporary injunction against the rule last year, last month, he made it permanent.
