As we previously reported, in April 2024 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Among other things, the rule stated that employers may be required to accommodate employees for abortion, treating it as a pregnancy-related condition.
That provision quickly became controversial. Several members of Congress and more conservative members of the EEOC argued that the rule went beyond what the PWFA allows, especially by including elective abortion in the scope of required workplace accommodations. The regulation was challenged in court, and now a federal judge in the Western District of Louisiana has partially struck it down.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge David Joseph found that the EEOC overstepped its authority. The court applied the "major questions doctrine"—a legal principle that prevents federal agencies from making sweeping policy decisions without clear direction from Congress. Given the ongoing political and legal debate around abortion—especially after the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade—the court found that Congress likely did not intend to delegate such a significant policy call to the EEOC.
The court noted that the PWFA was passed just six months after Dobbs. If Congress had wanted to require accommodations for abortion, the judge reasoned, it would have said so explicitly. As a result, the court vacated the part of the EEOC regulation that treated elective abortion as a condition requiring accommodation under the PWFA.
What This Means for Employers
For HR professionals, this decision provides immediate clarity: under current law, employers are not required to provide workplace accommodations for elective abortions under the PWFA. However, this may not be the final word. Andrea Lucas, the current acting chair of the EEOC (and a dissenting voice on the original regulation), has signaled that she may propose revisions to the rule. Any changes would need to go through the formal rulemaking process, which includes public notice and comment.
In the meantime, HR teams should:
- Continue to comply with all PWFA requirements related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions—excluding elective abortion for now.
- Monitor developments from the EEOC, particularly any efforts to revise the rule.
- Consult legal counsel when navigating requests for accommodations that may raise legal or political sensitivities.
As always, clear policies, training for managers, and a consistent approach to handling accommodation requests will help ensure compliance and minimize risk. The members of the KMK Labor & Employment Team are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding compliance with the PWFA.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2025 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
Greg Robinson assists his clients in navigating the complex world of workplace laws and regulations. He has counseled clients on a wide array of employment matters, including wage and hour disputes, discrimination charges ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Religion Discrimination
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Employer Rules
- Labor Law
- Discrimination
- Wage & Hour
- EEOC
- Coronavirus
- Department of Labor
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- NLRB
- Artificial Intelligence
- Title VII
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Worker Classification
- Compliance
- FLSA
- Department of Justice
- National Labor Relations Board
- Supreme Court
- Harassment
- NLRA
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Workplace Accommodations
- Overtime Pay
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Whistleblower
- Federal Arbitration Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Paycheck Protection Program
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Disability Leave
- Social Media Content
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- Ohio “Mini-WARN” Act Now In Effect: Key Compliance Takeaways for Employers
- EEOC's Renewed Focus on Religious Discrimination: What Employers Need to Know
- No Free Delivery: Misclassification Comes at a Price
- One Tweet Away From Trouble: Social Media at Work
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
