Compliance Stuff

On May 21, 2025, Judge David C. Joseph of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana  issued a ruling  vacating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s  final rule  under the 2022 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), 1  to the extent that the final rule includes elective abortion as a condition for which employers are required to make accommodations. The court vacated this portion of the final rule, finding that it exceeded the EEOC’s statutory authority.  The  EEOC issued the final rule in April 2024 , establishing a broad interpretation of “pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions” that permitted individuals to seek accommodation in connection with choosing or not choosing to have an abortion. This approach had been announced in August 2023, when the EEOC published its  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  (NPRM). In the final rule, the EEOC noted that it had first treated abortion as a “related medical condit...

A federal judge in Louisiana ruled yesterday that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its authority by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions that are not medically necessary. Although multiple lawsuits are currently pending on the issue, the order applies nationwide until and unless a higher court rules otherwise.  The judge’s May 21 decision vacated relevant parts of a Biden-era rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) – which was already living on borrowed time given the new administration’s position on the matter. Notably, Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has publicly opposed her agency’s abortion-related accommodation rule, was planning on taking steps to overturn the rule, and is expected to support the court’s ruling – though we could see worker advocacy groups pick up the battle in the agency’s place. Here’s what employers need to know about the ruling and how it impacts your policies and practices. Key Takeaways F...

 State Attorney General follows through on threat.  Last summer, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, thirteen “red state” Attorneys General warned the nation’s Fortune 100 companies that they should stop “reverse” discriminating against individuals on the basis of race or face the consequences. In their letter, the state AGs stated, “Sadly, racial discrimination in employment and contracting is all too common among Fortune 100 companies and other large businesses. In an inversion of the odious discriminatory practices of the distant past, t oday’s major companies adopt explicitly race-based initiatives which are similarly illegal . These discriminatory practices include, among other things, explicit racial quotas and preferences in hiring, recruiting, retention, promotion, and advancement. . . .  The warning letter c onclud...

Within weeks of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions last year, Republican attorneys general for 13 states sent a letter to Fortune 100 CEOs condemning their DEI initiatives in the workplace. They threatened to hold companies accountable for “illegal preferences” in employment and contracting practices. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has made good on that threat by filing the first lawsuit by a state Attorney General against a company for allegedly violating the Missouri Human Rights Act. Bailey asserts that IBM subjects job applicants to unlawful racial and gender quotas and bases employees’ pay and employment statuses on whether they participate in DEI practices that he alleges are discriminatory. “It has come to my attention that IBM has adopted an unlawful policy that blatantly favors applicants of a certain skin color over others, and that managers within the company who refuse to comply with said policy face adverse action,...

On the eve of the effective date of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) final Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations (Final Rule), a federal court in Louisiana postponed the effective date of what the court describes as the “Final Rule’s requirement that covered entities provide accommodation for the elective abortions of employees that are not necessary to treat a medical condition related to pregnancy” until final judgment is entered in pending litigation. State of Louisiana v. EEOC, et al., No 2:24-cv-00629 (W.D. La. June 17, 2024), and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00691 (W.D. La. June 17, 2024). The order may impact employers with employees in Louisiana and Mississippi. PWFA The PWFA was permanent legislation included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 signed by President Joe Biden on Dec. 29, 2022, and went into effect on June 27, 2023 . The law requires employers (including state government employers) w...