Dothan, ALA – A federal appeals court has cleared the way for a lawsuit filed by 17 states challenging federal regulations that entitle workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions. The Eighth Circuit Court’s decision, issued Thursday, reverses a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. of the Eastern District of Arkansas, who dismissed the case in June, arguing that the states lacked standing to sue.
In its opinion, the Eighth Circuit found that the states do, in fact, have standing to challenge the regulations, as they are subject to the federal rules. Chief Judge Steven M. Colloton, appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote that the states’ challenge could proceed, marking a significant development in a case with broader implications for abortion rights and workplace policies.
The lawsuit, which was filed in April, is led by Republican state attorneys general from Tennessee and Arkansas. These states, along with Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia, are contesting regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the Biden administration. The rules, which implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), require employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant or postpartum workers, including time off for medical appointments, extra bathroom breaks, and permission to carry snacks.
Critically, the EEOC’s regulations also specify that workers can request time off to obtain an abortion and to recover from the procedure. This provision has drawn sharp criticism from many Republican lawmakers, including Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who argued that the Biden-era EEOC is overstepping by including abortion accommodations in the PWFA guidelines.
“The EEOC’s unlawful regulations undermine the constitutional authority of the people’s elected representatives,” Skrmetti said in a statement following the court’s decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed. “We are vindicated by the Court’s decision to let our suit continue.”
The case is part of a wider legal battle surrounding the PWFA, a 2022 bipartisan law aimed at providing workplace protections for pregnant workers. While the law itself has widespread support, its implementation—particularly the inclusion of abortion-related accommodations—has sparked controversy, with many Republican lawmakers, including Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, objecting to the EEOC’s interpretation.
In addition to the legal challenge from these 17 states, other lawsuits are also targeting the EEOC’s regulations, including one in Texas that seeks to overturn the PWFA in its entirety. As the legal landscape around abortion rights continues to shift following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the EEOC’s guidelines have become a flashpoint in the broader debate over reproductive rights.
The EEOC, which enforces federal anti-discrimination laws, issued its regulations under the Biden administration in an effort to clarify how the PWFA should be implemented. The guidelines, which also cover accommodations for pregnancy-related medical conditions such as miscarriage and lactation, are viewed by some as a necessary safeguard to protect workers’ rights.
However, the rules have faced significant pushback from conservative groups and lawmakers. At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether the federal government has the authority to mandate accommodations for abortion, a practice that has become increasingly restricted in various states following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The EEOC’s current leadership, which includes Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has been marked by significant turnover. Under the Trump administration, two Democratic commissioners were dismissed before the expiration of their terms, and there are concerns that the agency may seek to amend or rescind parts of the PWFA regulations in the future.
While the EEOC has refrained from commenting on ongoing litigation, Lucas has expressed concerns over the scope of the rules, indicating that she believes parts of the regulations go beyond what is supported by law.
Despite the legal challenges, Inimai Chettiar, president of A Better Balance, a group that championed the PWFA, emphasized that the law remains in effect. “Women still have access to all of these accommodations,” she said. “This law is still on the books, the regulation is still on the books.”
As the legal battles over the PWFA regulations continue to unfold, the future of workplace accommodations for abortion-related healthcare remains uncertain. With ongoing lawsuits, shifts in the EEOC’s leadership, and the changing political landscape, the issue is expected to remain a focal point in the national debate over reproductive rights and workers’ protections.
