Cases & Developments

Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former custodial employee at Western Michigan University, brought Title VII pregnancy discrimination and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) claims against the university after it terminated her due to unsatisfactory job performance. The court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment holding that plaintiff had failed to make the required prima facie showing on either her Title VII or PWFA claim. On her Title VII claim, the court found that plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence showing that her firing was connected to her pregnancy. While plaintiff argued that a supervisor’s comments “criticizing her attendance and telling her to manage her pregnancy symptoms better” were evidence of such bias, the court disagreed, finding the supervisor’s statements could not be used to establish that plaintiff was treated adversely because the supervisor lacked decision-making authority over her termination. The court further noted that even if plaintiff had stated a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination, the university had provided “a strong, sex-neutral justification for [plaintiff’s] firing: her unsatisfactory job performance.” The court also found that plaintiff’s PWFA claim failed because the university could not be faulted for failing to reasonably accommodate her needs when she never effectively communicated them to the university.

Memorandum Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, Louisiana, Mississippi, and four Catholic organizations, sued the EEOC and sought to enjoin the EEOC’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) Final Rule, alleging that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Constitution when it included abortion as a “pregnancy related condition” requiring workplace accommodations and objecting, in particular, to accommodations for purely elective abortions. The court found that the States had standing based on “harm in the form of regulatory burden, increased costs to implement the abortion accommodation mandate, and damage to their sovereignty” and that Catholic organizations had standing based on the conflict with their religious beliefs. It then found the EEOC likely exceeded its statutory authority, noting (1) it categorized “abortion” as a “condition” rather than a “procedure” and (2) the Supreme Court in Dobbs permitted states to regulate abortion. It also found the mandatory accommodation likely interferes with state sovereignty to enforce abortion laws and violates the States’ First Amendment right to control their own messaging on abortion. Similarly, the Catholic organizations were likely to succeed in their assertion that the Final Rule’s narrow religious exemption will unconstitutionally burden them with protracted investigations on a case-by-case basis. The injunction applies to the plaintiff States, all employees of covered entities whose primary duty station is in Louisiana or Mississippi, and the Catholic organization plaintiffs.

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction as moot and dismissing for lack of standing. Plaintiffs, seventeen states where almost all abortions are illegal, sued the EEOC and sought a nationwide injunction to stay the new Final Rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) of 2022 while the case proceeds. The PWFA provides, among other things, that covered employers must provide reasonable accommodations for “known limitations” related to pregnancy or “related medical conditions.” The Final Rule and Interpretive Guidance include abortion among the “related medical conditions.” The States challenge that inclusion as it might require accommodations for elective abortion and claim that (1) the EEOC exceeded the statutory authority, (2) the inclusion offends the Constitution, and (3) it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. In dismissing the complaint, the court found the States lacked standing. It found that their assertion of sovereign harm failed because (1) the threat of an enforcement action is not imminent and (2) the injury is not redressable, as an aggrieved employee could still sue under the PWFA even if the Final Rule were enjoined. Their economic harm theory failed because (1) the alleged compliance costs related specifically to illegal, elective abortions are neither concrete nor particularized and (2) the alleged compliance costs are not fairly traceable to a threat of enforcement. The court also noted that the States, as a threshold matter, failed to show that any alleged injury was irreparable. It did not decide the likelihood of success on the merits.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Final Rule and Interpretive Guidance on Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The regulations provide for the implementation by the EEOC of the PWFA’s requirements that covered entities “provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause an undue hardship to the operation of the business of the covered entity.” The publication contains interpretive guidance, including many examples illustrating situations under major provisions of the PWFA, that will also guide the agency in its enforcement of the PWFA. The Final Rule and interpretive guidance will become effective on June 18, 2024.

Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Hinds Community College resolving a pregnancy discrimination investigation. OCR investigated a complaint filed by a student alleging that the College discriminated against her by not providing her with academic adjustments during her pregnancy and that the College did not respond promptly to her complaint that her instructors and program supervisor subjected her to harassment based on her pregnancy. Through the Resolution Agreement, the College agreed to (1) review and revise its practices, policies, and procedures for providing adjustments for pregnant students; (2) update its website and other areas for disseminating information; (3) train all full-time faculty and relevant staff on the Title IX rights of pregnant students; (4) conduct surveys to assess the effectiveness of trainings; (5) develop a tracking system for pregnancy-related adjustments for students; (6) compile a list of all pregnancy-related requests for adjustments; and (7) reimburse the complainant for tuition and related mandatory costs associated with repeating the final semester of her program.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The NPRM contains an overview of the PWFA, the proposed implementing regulations, and an appendix with interpretive guidance that will become a part of the Code of Federal Regulations when the rule is finalized. The EEOC has also established a website, called What You Should Know About the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, with information and resources in FAQ format. Comments are due on or before October 10, 2023.