Fortune Views

― Advertisement ―

spot_img

Despite $75B in VC Investments in Q4, Startups Struggle to Secure Funding

Venture capital investment in U.S. startups surged to $74.6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2024, a significant rise from the $42 billion average...
HomeIndustryHuman Resource Management (HRMS)17 states file lawsuit to halt implementation of EEOC rule on pregnancy...

17 states file lawsuit to halt implementation of EEOC rule on pregnancy accommodations

Seventeen states have taken legal action against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Their aim? To request a stay and preliminary injunction of the agency’s newly minted pregnancy accommodation rule.

According to the lawsuit, the final rule, which implements the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), is deemed arbitrary and capricious. The states argue that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act due to its abortion accommodation provisions conflicting with the PWFA. Additionally, they claim that the rule infringes upon the First Amendment’s free speech protections by mandating employers to accommodate elective abortions.

The PWFA mandates that employers with 15 or more employees provide reasonable accommodations for job applicants and employees with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, without causing undue hardship. However, the EEOC’s interpretation of “related medical conditions” to include abortion has sparked controversy.

Critics, including Senator Bill Cassidy, a co-sponsor of the PWFA, have voiced opposition, alleging that the EEOC has disregarded Congressional intent. The states involved in the lawsuit cited Cassidy’s stance in their complaint.

Leading the charge is Tennessee, joined by sixteen other states, including Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. In addition to challenging the rule, the plaintiffs argue that the EEOC’s structure as an independent federal agency, shielded from at-will removal by the president, is unconstitutional.

The EEOC’s rule clarifies that the PWFA doesn’t compel employer-sponsored health plans to cover abortions or require accommodations leading to employer-funded travel for abortions. EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows assured that employers would have avenues to object to abortion accommodations, particularly based on religious beliefs.

As the legal battle unfolds, it remains to be seen how the courts will weigh the concerns raised by the states and the EEOC’s interpretation of the PWFA.