In April, the EEOC published pregnancy accommodation rules for employers and workers to implement the Pregnant Women’s Fairness Act (PWFA) in the Federal Register. The PWFA is a law that was passed in 2022 that mandates employers to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant or postpartum workers. The PWFA went into effect on June 27, 2023. Implementing the PWFA fills a crucial gap that has existed for a long time in the federal pregnancy discrimination law. Unlike New Jersey law, which has long required employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, employees who have recently given birth, and those dealing with pregnancy- or childbirth-related conditions, federal law lacked this requirement.
The PWFA has been faced with a lot of opposition. The rule’s inclusion of abortion under the category of pregnancy- or childbirth-related conditions has proved to be controversial among many. Attorneys general from 17 states, led by Tennessee and Arkansas, filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Arkansas days after the EEOC published the implementation rules. In the lawsuit, the attorneys general challenged the federal rules giving employees the right to time off and other accommodations for abortions. They sought a nationwide preliminary injunction on the federal regulations. According to the attorneys general, the pregnancy accommodation rules would force employers to provide reasonable accommodation for workers who have had an abortion and are experiencing complications related to the procedure, including employers in the states they represent, which have restricted abortion rights. The lawsuit claimed that the rules would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for an illegal procedure.
The EEOC, in the Federal Register, provided some clarification. According to the EEOC, the PWFA does not obligate employers to provide health plans that cover abortion-related services. Additionally, the EEOC clarified that the Act does not require the provision of financial support for such services. The commission also noted that in previous years, it has seen very few cases where an employer has cited “moral or legal ground” to reject a worker’s request for leave related to an abortion.
U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. denied the state’s request for an injunction. The judge ruled that the lawsuit lacked standing because the claimants could not demonstrate imminent harm. Because the lawsuit lacks standing, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
According to the Constitution, the claimant must have standing to sue for a federal court to decide a case. If standing is challenged, a plaintiff has to establish the following;
- They have suffered an “injury in fact” that has happened or is imminent
- The injury is directly related to the issue being contested in the lawsuit
- A favorable ruling from the court is likely to address and remedy the claimant’s grievance
The claimants could not establish any of these elements, resulting in the lawsuit being dismissed.
However, the above is not the only challenge to the PWFA rule. For example, recently, a federal judge ruled that the EEOC cannot enforce the rule in Louisiana and Mississippi since the rule requires employers to provide workers with time off and other accommodations for abortions.
Contact a New Jersey Employment Lawyer
If you have questions or need help with an employment law-related matter, contact our New Jersey employment lawyer at the Trabosh Law Firm.