Articles

PWFA Update: Louisiana Judge Strikes EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Abortions

PWFA Update: Louisiana Judge Strikes EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Abortions

Lynn Luther, Esq. and Dan Dubow, Esq.

Eastman & Smith, Ltd. 

On May 21, 2025, a judge from the U.S. District Court in Louisiana struck down an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation requiring employers to accommodate employees who have an abortion. The order applies nationwide.  This ruling in the case of Louisiana v. EEOC provides an update on how courts around the country are grappling with the recently enacted Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which went into effect on June 27, 2023.

The PWFA applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who have “known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions…” so long as the accommodation would not pose an undue hardship on the employer. The PWFA prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee requiring an accommodation and prohibits an employer from forcing an accommodation upon a worker without first going through the interactive process of discussing whether and/or how to accommodate the individual.

The EEOC regulation at issue in the Louisiana case resulted from Congress’ directive to the EEOC to issue regulations implementing the PWFA, and to include “examples of reasonable accommodations addressing known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” In accordance with this requirement, the EEOC issued a rule stating that an abortion constituted an example of a “related medical condition” that is covered by the PWFA. This regulation required employers to provide an accommodation to women who had an abortion, and also prohibited discrimination against individuals who underwent that procedure.

In Louisiana, the Court found the EEOC exceeded its authority in issuing this rule and struck requirements for accommodations and prohibiting discrimination for the conditions of “termination of pregnancy, including via miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion” for “purely elective abortions.”  In striking this rule, the Court effectively found that the PWFA does not require accommodation, or prohibit discrimination, against an individual because of a “termination of pregnancy, including via miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion,” unless otherwise required to do so by state law. Although the Court limited its ruling to ‘purely elective abortions,’ it provided little context for how that would be defined.  Michigan law does not confer an explicit duty to accommodate an employee as a result of an abortion, but the state does prohibit discrimination on the basis of “termination of a pregnancy,” so an employer could still be held liable for this conduct under state law. In addition, the FMLA and ADA could potentially apply to these situations and protect the employee should those issues arise. 

This case illustrates the uncertainty employers face when trying to decipher what “related medical conditions” are covered by the PWFA, and how other federal and state laws impact that analysis.  The law is continually evolving, and often varies by jurisdiction, so consult with employment counsel when navigating accommodations and other issues under the PWFA.