Nationwide Ruling Signals Significant Shift in Scope of Employer Obligations  

June 16, 2025 – On May 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a sweeping decision in State of Louisiana, et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 6:24-cv-00647, vacating the EEOC’s final rulemaking to the extent it requires employers to accommodate elective abortions under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The ruling carries immediate and nationwide implications, marking a significant development in the evolving intersection of federal accommodation law and state abortion regulations.

Background: Legislative and Legal Landscape

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion regulation to individual states, a wave of restrictive abortion laws emerged across the country. Against this backdrop, Congress enacted the PWFA in December 2022, effective June 27, 2023. The PWFA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or “related medical conditions”—unless doing so imposes an undue hardship on the employer.

In April 2024, the EEOC issued a final rule (29 C.F.R. Part 1636) interpreting “related medical conditions” to include abortion, thereby obligating covered employers to provide accommodations connected to both having and not having an abortion. The agency cited longstanding Title VII interpretations and prior precedents under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) in support of its position. The rule faced significant public resistance, drawing more than 50,000 comments in opposition.

The Lawsuit: States Challenge Federal Overreach

In May 2024, the states of Louisiana and Mississippi—joined by a group of religious organizations—filed suit challenging the EEOC’s authority to require abortion-related accommodations. Plaintiffs argued that the final rule conflicted with state abortion laws and exceeded the EEOC’s statutory authority.

In June 2024, Judge David C. Joseph granted a preliminary injunction against the abortion-related portion of the final rule but limited its application to the plaintiff states and affiliated religious employers. The ruling stood in contrast to a contemporaneous decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, which denied a similar injunction in State of Arkansas, et al. v. EEOC, finding the EEOC’s interpretation consistent with existing federal precedent.

The May 2025 Ruling: Nationwide Vacatur

In its new and final decision, the Western District of Louisiana determined that the EEOC lacked clear congressional authorization to interpret the PWFA as requiring abortion accommodations. Applying the “major questions doctrine” as articulated in an earlier Supreme Court case, West Virginia v. EPA, the court held that the EEOC’s interpretation implicated issues of significant political and economic consequence, requiring unmistakable legislative clarity—lacking in this case.

Key holdings from the decision include:

• Congressional Intent: The court found no indication that Congress intended the PWFA to include abortion accommodations, especially given that the Act was passed after Dobbs returned authority over abortion to the states. Citing explicit statements from congressional debates and committee reports, the court emphasized that lawmakers specifically declined to include abortion-related provisions within the PWFA.
• Statutory Overreach: The court concluded that the EEOC “unlawfully expropriated the authority of Congress” and infringed on state sovereignty by mandating accommodations for elective abortion procedures.

As a result, the court vacated the portion of the final rule defining “related medical conditions” to include abortion and remanded the rule back to the EEOC for revision. The ruling applies nationwide.

What This Means for Employers

The court’s ruling limits, but does not eliminate, employer obligations under the PWFA. Employers should note the following:

• PWFA is Still in Force: Employers must continue to comply with all other provisions of the PWFA, including accommodating pregnancy-related conditions such as nausea, gestational diabetes, and recovery from childbirth.
• Elective Abortions Not Required Accommodations (for Now): Employers are no longer required—under federal law—to provide accommodations for elective abortions that are not medically necessary.
• Permissible, But Not Mandatory: The ruling does not prohibit employers from voluntarily accommodating elective abortions if they choose to do so under internal policies or broader benefit plans.
• Title VII Protections Still Apply: Employers must remain mindful that adverse actions based on an employee’s decision to have (or not have) an abortion may still violate Title VII, as interpreted by the EEOC and federal courts.
• Watch State and Local Law: Some states and municipalities may still require abortion-related accommodations or protections. Employers should ensure compliance with all applicable jurisdictions, especially those offering broader reproductive health rights.

Final Thoughts

While this decision clarifies that the EEOC’s abortion-related accommodation mandate under the PWFA overstepped its statutory boundaries, litigation in this area is far from over. Employers should continue to monitor evolving federal and state developments, including any revised guidance issued by the EEOC in response to the remand.

For assistance interpreting how this ruling may affect your organization, workplace policies, or compliance obligations, please contact a Kullman attorney to assist you.