A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in a case brought by Louisiana, Mississippi and a group of Catholics to stop a federal rule that would have required them to provide workers who wanted to get abortions with time off and other accommodations. Judge David Joseph granted temporary relief on Monday in two consolidated lawsuits – one brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, and another brought by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses.
The lawsuits challenge rules by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that take effect Tuesday stating abortions are among pregnancy-related conditions covered by the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which took effect last year. Joseph prohibited the EEOC from enforcing the abortion provision of its rules against the Catholic plaintiffs and employers located in Louisiana and Mississippi while the case plays out in court.
“The District Court applied a common sense interpretation of the plain words of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act,” said Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill. The ruling was a partial victory for the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, who sought a broader emergency injunction that would have blocked the entirety of the EEOC rules from taking effect across the country.
More than 20 labor, civil rights, and women’s advocacy groups expressed concern over the impact of the ruling, stating that the EEOC rules are essential to the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. However, some groups pointed out that the court’s decision may make it more difficult for pregnant workers to obtain accommodations related to abortion.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, passed in 2022 with bipartisan support, aimed to provide accommodations for pregnant workers who had been denied time off for medical appointments and other necessary support. Despite the controversy surrounding the inclusion of abortion-related accommodations in the law, the EEOC defended its regulations, stating that it aligns with existing interpretations of anti-discrimination laws.
The ruling has sparked debates among legal advocacy groups and lawmakers, with some criticizing the EEOC’s interpretation of the law as overreaching. However, supporters of the law emphasize the importance of protecting the rights of pregnant and postpartum workers, ensuring they receive the necessary accommodations in the workplace.
Overall, the court’s decision highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding abortion-related accommodations in the workplace and the broader implications for pregnant workers’ rights. As the case continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the conflicting interests of various stakeholders will be reconciled within the framework of existing laws and regulations.
