Federal Judge David Joseph delivers a major blow to the Biden-era EEOC by ruling that abortion accommodations are explicitly excluded from the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, bringing an end to mandated time off for abortion procedures in American workplaces.
Key Takeaways
- Judge David Joseph, a Trump appointee, ruled that the EEOC overstepped its authority by including abortion accommodations in the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
- The decision invalidates only the abortion-related section of the EEOC’s regulation, leaving broader protections for pregnant workers intact.
- The lawsuit was brought by Louisiana and Mississippi attorneys general, along with religious organizations opposed to abortion protections.
- The ruling aligns with other recent decisions limiting federal agency overreach, including a similar ruling against EEOC transgender workplace regulations.
- The Justice Department’s defense of the EEOC’s position is expected to shift under the Trump administration.
Federal Judge Strikes Down Abortion Accommodations Requirement
U.S. District Judge David Joseph has ruled that American employers are not required to provide workplace accommodations for abortions under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The decision comes as a significant victory for conservative lawmakers and religious groups who opposed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s interpretation of the 2022 law. Judge Joseph’s ruling specifically invalidates the portion of the EEOC regulation that included abortion as a “pregnancy-related condition” requiring workplace accommodations, while leaving intact other protections for pregnant workers under the law.
“The EEOC has exceeded its statutory authority to implement the PWFA and, in doing so, both unlawfully expropriated the authority of Congress and encroached upon the sovereignty of the Plaintiff States under basic principles of federalism,” Judge Joseph stated in his ruling.
The judge’s decision centered on the fact that Congress did not explicitly include abortion in the text of the PWFA. He argued that given the significant social, religious, and political implications of abortion, Congress would have spoken clearly if it intended to include abortion accommodations in the law. This reasoning echoes the judicial philosophy of textual interpretation that has become increasingly prominent in federal courts, particularly among judges appointed by President Trump.
States and Religious Groups Lead Legal Challenge
The legal challenge was spearheaded by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, along with several religious organizations. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill celebrated the ruling as “a win for Louisiana and for life.” The lawsuit argued that the EEOC’s interpretation of the PWFA would have forced employers with religious or moral objections to abortion to provide accommodations that violated their beliefs. The ruling represents a significant setback for reproductive rights advocates who had viewed the EEOC’s interpretation as an important protection for working women.
“Judge David Joseph of the Western District of Louisiana found that the EEOC overstepped its authority under the statute and ordered the Commission to remove the abortion provision from the rules,” noted legal experts reviewing the case.
The PWFA, which took effect in June 2023, requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers, similar to protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC’s final rules implementing the law, which became effective in June 2024, had explicitly included abortion as a condition eligible for accommodation, triggering immediate legal challenges from states and religious groups opposed to abortion.
Broader Pattern of Limiting Federal Agency Overreach
This decision is part of a broader pattern of federal courts limiting what they view as regulatory overreach by federal agencies. In a parallel case, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk recently struck down an EEOC rule on transgender workplace protections, similarly finding that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority. That rule had addressed issues such as pronoun usage and bathroom access for transgender employees, which Judge Kacsmaryk determined created mandatory standards beyond the agency’s authority.
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” Judge Kacsmaryk wrote in his ruling on the transgender regulations case.
Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts praised these rulings, saying “the Biden EEOC tried to compel businesses — and the American people — to deny basic biological truth.” The rulings reflect President Trump’s success in appointing federal judges who are willing to rein in what conservatives view as administrative overreach by federal agencies. With the Trump administration now established, the Justice Department is expected to align with these judicial interpretations rather than defend the previous administration’s more expansive regulatory approaches.
Implications for Workplace Policies
The practical effect of Judge Joseph’s ruling is that employers are not required to provide accommodations specifically for abortion under federal law, unless Congress amends the PWFA to explicitly include such protections. This outcome aligns with President Trump’s broader rollback of federal support for abortion, including his enforcement of the Hyde Amendment restricting federal funding for abortions and reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy prohibiting foreign aid to organizations that provide abortion services.
“Current acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas went on record earlier this year expressing her desire to amend the rules to remove the abortion provision,” indicating the direction the agency may take under the Trump administration.
While this ruling represents a significant victory for pro-life advocates, the broader protections for pregnant workers under the PWFA remain intact. Employers must still provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, just not specifically for abortion. The decision reinforces the principle that major policy changes with significant moral and social implications should come through explicit legislative action rather than regulatory interpretation, a cornerstone of conservative judicial philosophy.
