A federal judge in Arkansas has ruled against a lawsuit filed by 17 states challenging federal rules that entitle workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions. The lawsuit was led by Republican attorneys general from Arkansas and Tennessee and argued that the rules go beyond the scope of the 2022 law that passed with bipartisan support. The rules were published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as part of the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant or postpartum employees, including time off for abortion and recovery.
Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., appointed by former President Barack Obama, denied the states’ request for a nationwide preliminary injunction on the federal rules, which are set to go into effect on Tuesday. This ruling addressed the states’ concerns of federal overreach, stating that one branch of government’s overreach cannot be cured with another. Despite this setback, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin expressed disappointment and is considering legal options to ultimately be successful. The other states involved in the lawsuit include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia.
The EEOC regulations are also facing another challenge in Louisiana, where a separate lawsuit is still awaiting a ruling. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups have filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Louisiana over the abortion provision in the rules. These cases have been consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, which also seeks to postpone the enforcement of the rules pending the outcome of the case. The ACLU and labor and women’s advocacy groups have filed amicus briefs in support of the EEOC rules, arguing that they are essential for the successful implementation of the law.
The advocacy groups cited numerous examples of pregnant workers who have been denied accommodations by employers in violation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. They emphasized the importance of the EEOC rules in providing clarity on how the law works in practice. The EEOC, in its regulations, stated that it was following established legal precedent that includes abortion under pregnancy anti-discrimination laws. As abortion rights come under threat, these protections are seen as crucial, especially for women in states with strict abortion restrictions who may need time off to travel for the procedure. The EEOC rules are set to take effect next week, providing important support for pregnant and postpartum workers across the country.
The decision in Tennessee v. EEOC has been hailed as a victory for millions of pregnant and postpartum workers by advocates like Dina Bakst of A Better Balance, who led the campaign for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act’s passage. The ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project also celebrated the ruling, calling the relief sought in the lawsuit in Arkansas “completely overboard.” They emphasized the need for guidance for employers who have been violating the law and denying accommodations to pregnant workers. The EEOC rules are seen as a crucial tool in ensuring that pregnant and postpartum employees receive the necessary support and accommodations in the workplace.
