A coalition of 17 Republican-led states filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over new regulations requiring employers to provide accommodations for pregnant workers seeking abortions. Led by the attorneys general of Arkansas and Tennessee, the lawsuit challenges the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion as one of the pregnancy-related situations employers must accommodate. The attorneys general argue that the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act, which the regulations are based on, was meant to protect pregnancies, not end them. They claim that the law is intended to accommodate certain types of pregnant employees, not provide accommodations for abortions.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti are leading the lawsuit, alleging that the EEOC’s interpretation of the PWFA is radical and illegal. They claim that the law was passed to protect expecting mothers and promote healthy pregnancies, not require employers to accommodate abortions. The attorneys general from both states also noted that Arkansas and Tennessee do not mandate that employers provide paid parental leave, and did not address the potential impact on businesses of allowing employees time off for abortions. The regulations only apply to employers with 15 or more employees and allow employers to deny accommodations if providing them would cause an undue hardship to their business.
The lawsuit was joined by 15 other states, most of which have total or highly restrictive abortion bans in place. The EEOC has not yet responded to the legal challenge. In addition to accommodations for abortions, the new regulations also require employers to provide accommodations for other pregnancy-related situations such as childbirth, miscarriage, stillbirth, lactation, and fertility treatments. These situations can result in physical and mental limitations for pregnant workers. The regulations are scheduled to go into effect on June 18 and are expected to especially benefit patients of color who are more likely to work low-paying, physically demanding jobs that do not guarantee them time off.
Overall, the lawsuit challenges the EEOC’s new regulations requiring employers to provide accommodations for pregnant workers seeking abortions, with the attorneys general of Arkansas and Tennessee arguing that the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act was intended to protect pregnancies, not end them. The lawsuit alleges that the EEOC’s interpretation of the law is radical and illegal, and that the law was passed to protect expecting mothers and promote healthy pregnancies. The regulations also require accommodations for other pregnancy-related situations and are expected to particularly benefit patients of color who are more likely to work low-paying, physically demanding jobs. The lawsuit was joined by 15 other states, most of which have total or highly restrictive abortion bans in place.
