Court stops EEOC from requiring abortion paid time off

A federal court in Louisiana on Monday blocked the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from forcing employers with religious objections to provide abortion-related benefits for workers.

A federal judge issued a temporary injunction protecting the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and several other Catholic organizations from having to follow the EEOC mandate while the case is ongoing. The religious groups sued the EEOC in May for requiring them to provide paid leave and other benefits to employees so that they could have abortions.

The governments of Louisiana and Mississippi filed a parallel lawsuit in the same court, so the ruling also protects employers in those states, as well. 

The EEOC mandate abortion stems from its interpretation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which Congress created to add workplace protections for pregnant workers.

President Joe Biden signed the law in December 2022, and the EEOC issued final rules for implementing it in April of this year.

The law makes it illegal for employers to deny pregnant employees reasonable accommodations such as extra restroom breaks and modified work schedules. The text of the bill passed by Congress makes no mention of abortion. As the federal agency tasked with enforcing the law, the EEOC added in the regulatory requirement for elective abortion accommodations.

The EEOC’s action’s “basically twisted the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act out of its clear intent from Congress, which was just to protect healthy pregnancies,” said Andrea Butler, an attorney at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Catholic groups.

The EEOC said it would evaluate religious exemptions to the rule on a case-by-case basis, but it failed to make clear that groups like the Catholic ministries do not have to accommodate employees’ abortions, Butler said.

“It’s extremely important for religious entities to know their rights up front,” Butler said. “That way they are not forced to make a decision at the outset about whether or not they are going to face potential liability for not complying with something that violates their religious beliefs.” 

U.S. District Judge David Joseph on Monday blocked the EEOC from enforcing the law, saying that Congress never meant for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to demand abortion-related benefits.

“‘Abortion’ is a term that is readily understood by everyone,” Joseph wrote. “If Congress had intended to mandate that employers accommodate elective abortions under the [act], it would have spoken clearly when enacting the statute, particularly given the enormous social, religious, and political importance of the abortion issue in our nation.”

Joseph added that the EEOC engaged in “semantic gymnastics” and “disingenuous” legal arguments in a “textbook case of a federal administrative agency exceeding its statutory authority in a way that both usurps the role of Congress and violates authority vested in the states under the principles of federalism.”

The EEOC has 60 days to appeal the ruling, which will otherwise last until the case is fully resolved, Butler said. It could take anywhere from one to a few years to complete.

A parallel case in Arkansas had a different outcome. The U.S. District Court in the Eastern District Of Arkansas dismissed a lawsuit filed by 17 states against the EEOC abortion accommodations. The states, which protect most unborn babies from abortion, argued the requirement went against Congress’s original intent for the law.

U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. found the states “lack standing and haven’t shown a likelihood of irreparable harm.”

Butler noted that the Arkansas case dealt with the same accommodations required by the EEOC but was filed by states and not religious organizations, whereas in the Louisiana case, the plaintiffs were suing to vindicate their religious rights.

The EEOC regulation affects not just religious organizations but also more than 130 million workers in private companies, she said. A final ruling in the Louisiana case could either expand or diminish religious protections nationwide, she said.