Judge rejects 17 states’ bid to halt pregnancy housing laws pending appeal

Brief description of the dive:

• A federal judge has rejected a request by several states to block the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s rules on accommodating pregnant workers while states continue to challenge them in court.
• “Because the States lack a legal basis and have not demonstrated probable irreparable harm, the Court does not find that the balance of equity or the public interest supports the issuance of an injunction pending the outcome of the appeal,” ruled U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
• Previously, 17 plaintiff states (Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, lead plaintiff Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia) argued that the final regulations were arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

Diving Insight:

The legislation, which would implement the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act, has been met with resistance since it was first proposed. The law is set to go into effect in June 2023, and the final version, released in April, went into effect on June 18.

Under the PWFA, employers with 15 or more employees are required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. At issue was the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion in the definition of related medical conditions.

In a separate June 17 order, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, a temporary injunction was issued to Louisiana, Mississippi and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, temporarily releasing them from their obligation to comply with the final ruling.

In those consolidated cases, Judge David C. Joseph found that the EEOC had “exceeded its statutory authority to implement the PWFA” and violated states’ sovereignty. But the court limited the order to the plaintiffs in the case and did not extend it to the rest of the United States.

Those states argued that including abortion on demand in the final rule challenges state laws that restrict and restrict abortions. Catholic organizations argued that the final rule requires them to accommodate employers who perform abortions, which conflicts with their religious beliefs, according to court documents.