{"id":1435,"date":"2024-05-16T13:59:21","date_gmt":"2024-05-16T17:59:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1435"},"modified":"2024-05-16T14:05:47","modified_gmt":"2024-05-16T18:05:47","slug":"state-ags-sue-eeoc-for-abortion-related-accommodation-requirements-in-pwfa-final-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/05\/16\/state-ags-sue-eeoc-for-abortion-related-accommodation-requirements-in-pwfa-final-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"State AGs Sue EEOC For Abortion-Related Accommodation Requirements In PWFA Final Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Christian J. Palacios<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>On April 25, 2024, a group of seventeen (17) state attorneys\u2019 general sued the EEOC for its April 19, 2024 Final Rule (the \u201cFinal Rule\u201d) outlining the Commission\u2019s regulations regarding the newly enacted Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2022 (\u201cPWFA\u201d).\u00a0 The case – captioned States of Tennessee et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission<\/a>, Case No. 2:24-CV-00084 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 25, 2024) \u2013 is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and alleges the EEOC\u2019s Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (the \u201cAPA\u201d) and the U.S. Constitution based on the fact that it defines a \u201crelated medical condition\u201d to include an abortion.\u00a0 This new lawsuit may shape up to be a significant challenge to the EEOC\u2019s authority to enforce its newest federal anti-discrimination statute in its enforcement toolkit. <\/em><\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The PWFA requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation to qualified employees or applicants that have known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or \u201crelated medical conditions,\u201d unless the accommodations will cause the employer undue hardship.\u00a0 See<\/em> 42 U.SC. \u00a7 2000gg(4). Modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act (the \u201cADA\u201d), the PWFA contains the familiar language of requiring \u201creasonable accommodations\u201d absent a showing of \u201cundue hardship\u201d and the law officially went into effect on June 27, 2023. On April 19, 2024, the EEOC issued its four hundred and eight (408) page Final Rule and guidance implementing the PWFA. The Commission voted 3-2, along party lines, to pass the Final Rule and the regulation officially goes into effect on June 18, 2024.<\/p>\n

Under the Final Rule, the Commission describes \u201crelated medical conditions\u201d to include \u201clactation, miscarriage, stillbirth, having or choosing not to have an abortion, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets syndrome).\u201d\u00a0 29 C.F.R. 1636 at 17. The Final Rule expressly states that \u201cit does not regulate the provision of abortion services or affect whether and under what circumstances an abortion should be permitted. The PWFA does not require any employee to have\u2014or not to have\u2014an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 29.<\/p>\n

The Complaint <\/strong><\/p>\n

On April 25, 2024, ten (10) days after the EEOC issued its final regulations, a coalition of states with Republican-led attorneys general, including the AG\u2019s of Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia commenced a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Arkansas against the EEOC on the basis that its Final Rule included abortion to be a related medical condition.\u00a0 The complaint begins with declaring that although the PWFA passed with bipartisan support, \u201cin a new rule, a bare 3-2 majority of unelected commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeks to hijack these new protections for pregnancies<\/em> by requiring employers to accommodate workers\u2019 abortions<\/em>-something Congress did not authorize.\u201d Compl. at 1. The Complaint further claims that if the Rule stands, plaintiff states, and others, would be compelled to \u201cfacilitate workers\u2019 abortions or face federal suit-even those elective abortions of healthy pregnancies that are illegal under state law.\u201d Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The fifty-one (51) page Complaint alleges a variety of violations of the APA and the U.S. Constitution. With respect to the APA violations, the attorneys general assert, amongst other things, that the EEOC\u2019s final rule contravenes the text of the PWFA, conflicts with federal statutory prohibitions on abortion funding, and is arbitrary and capricious.\u00a0 The Complaint\u2019s constitutional objections to the EEOC\u2019s final rule include allegations that that the Final Rule violates principles of federalism, state sovereignty, the First Amendment, Article II and the separation of powers doctrine.\u00a0 The Complaint concludes by asking the Court, amongst other requested relief, to enter a preliminary injunction against the Commission, or any other agency or federal employee, from enforcing or implementing the Final Rule\u2019s abortion-accommodation, pending the Court\u2019s final judgement on the plaintiffs\u2019 claims, and vacating and setting aside the Final rule as unlawful. Id<\/em>. at 46.<\/p>\n

Implications <\/strong><\/p>\n

In the last several years, the APA has been a popular vehicle for states to challenge rules promulgated by administrative agencies. The EEOC in particular is no stranger to having its enforcement authority challenged by both private and public entities.\u00a0 Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the state AGs will ultimately be successful in requiring the Commission to roll back its own guidance with respect to the abortion-related accommodations currently present within its Final Rule.\u00a0 If the plaintiffs are successful, it could serve as a basis for challenging the Commission\u2019s ability to enforce and promulgate future rules relating to the other federal antidiscrimination statutes the EEOC enforces.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Christian J. Palacios Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On April 25, 2024, a group of seventeen (17) state attorneys\u2019 general sued the EEOC for its April 19, 2024 Final Rule (the \u201cFinal Rule\u201d) outlining the Commission\u2019s regulations regarding the newly enacted Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2022 (\u201cPWFA\u201d).\u00a0 The case – … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “State AGs Sue EEOC For Abortion-Related Accommodation Requirements In PWFA Final Rule”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eeoc-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1435","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1435"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1435\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1435"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}