The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog
A new rule from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeks to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), but it has faced opposition. The PWFA fills an important gap in federal pregnancy discrimination law. New Jersey employment law has long required employers to provide reasonable accommodations for workers who are pregnant, have recently given birth, or are dealing with medical conditions related to either pregnancy or childbirth. Federal law did not have this requirement, except for a possible interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The PWFA expressly requires reasonable accommodations in these circumstances. Several state attorneys general filed suit against the EEOC to blog the new PWFA rule based on the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion and related services. A federal court dismissed the lawsuit in June 2024, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. That lawsuit, however, is not the only challenge to the rule.
The PWFA took effect on June 27, 2023. The EEOC published its rule implementing the PWFA in the Federal Register on April 19, 2024. The rule broadly interprets the PWFA’s requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodations based on “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” It is similar to the ADA’s reasonable accommodations process, with some important differences. The rule places a fairly heavy burden on employers to accommodate workers’ needs.
Seventeen state attorneys general filed suit against the EEOC on April 25. They sought an injunction preventing the PWFA rule from taking effect. Much of their objections stemmed from the inclusion of abortion in the rule’s definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The rule would require employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees who have the procedure or are dealing with complications related to the procedure.
The plaintiffs represent states that have curtailed abortion rights since the Dobbs decision in 2022. They claimed in the lawsuit that the rule would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for procedures that are illegal in those states.
In the Federal Register, the EEOC pointed out that the PWFA does not require employer-sponsored health plans to cover abortion-related services, nor does it require “reasonable accommodations” to include any financial support for such services. It also noted that in the past four decades, it has encountered very few cases in which an employer cites “moral or legal ground” to deny an employee’s request for leave from work related to an abortion.
A court rejected the lawsuit in June 2024 without addressing any of these points. First, it denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, ruling that they had failed to show they would suffer “irreparable harm” without an injunction. It based its dismissal order on a lack of standing.
The U.S. Constitution only allows federal courts to decide cases in which a plaintiff can show they have standing to sue. A plaintiff must establish the following if standing is challenged:
– They have suffered an “injury in fact” that is concrete and either has occurred or is about to occur.
– The subject matter of the lawsuit is causally connected to the injury in fact.
– A favorable decision by the court is likely to redress the plaintiff’s complaint.
The court found that the plaintiffs could not establish any of these elements.
The experienced and skilled employment attorneys at the Resnick Law Group advocate for the rights of employees who have endured unlawful workplace practices in New Jersey and New York. To schedule a confidential consultation to see how we can assist you, please contact us at 973-781-1204, at 646-867-7997, or online today.