Judge scraps federal rules requiring employers to give workers time off for abortions
A federal judge on Wednesday struck down regulations requiring most U.S. employers to provide workers with time off and other accommodations for abortions.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge David Joseph of the Western District of Louisiana was a victory for conservative lawmakers and religious groups who decried the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's decision to include abortion among pregnancy-related conditions in regulations on how to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which passed in December 2022.
The EEOC's decision swiftly prompted several lawsuits and eroded what had been strong bipartisan support for the law designed to strengthen the rights of pregnant workers.
Joseph, who was appointed by President Trump during his first term, ruled that the EEOC exceeded its authority by including abortion in its regulations. His ruling came in two consolidated lawsuits brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses.
Joseph sided with the plaintiffs' argument that if Congress had intended for abortion to be covered by the Pregnant Workers Fairness 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 at this time."
Mississippi and Louisiana have near-total bans on abortion, except to save the life of the pregnant person or in cases of a rape that has been reported to law enforcement in Mississippi, and when there is a substantial risk of death or impairment to the patient in continuing the pregnancy and in cases where the fetus has a fatal abnormality in Louisiana.
Bipartisan support for pregnant workers law
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act passed with widespread bipartisan support after a decade-long campaign by women's right advocates, who hailed it as a win for low-wage pregnant workers who have routinely been denied accommodations for everything from time off for medical appointments to the ability to sit or stand on the job.
The federal law applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
While the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 prohibits employers from firing pregnant workers, the law did little to guarantee that women would receive accommodations they might need at work. As a result, many women were forced to keep working under unsafe conditions, or were forced to take unpaid leave by employers who refused to accommodate their needs.
But many Republican lawmakers, including Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who co-sponsored the bill, were furious when the EEOC stated that the law covered abortions. The EEOC's commissioners approved the rules in a 3-2 vote along party lines, with both Republican commissioners voting against it.
Joseph vacated the provision of the EEOC regulations that included abortion as a "related medical condition" of pregnancy and childbirth. However, the rest of the regulations still stand.
"Victory! A federal court has granted Louisiana's request to strike down an EEOC rule requiring employers to accommodate employees' purely elective abortions. This is a win for Louisiana and for life!" Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press.
A Better Balance, the advocacy group that spearheaded a decade-long campaign for passage of the law, condemned the ruling.
"This court's decision to deny workers reasonable accommodations for abortion-related needs is part of a broader attack on women's rights and reproductive freedom," A Better Balance President Inimai Chettiar said in a statement.
EEOC adrift
Wednesday's ruling comes as the Trump administration has moved to impose tumultuous changes at the EEOC that will almost certainly lead the agency to eventually rewrite the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act regulations.
President Trump fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners before their terms ended, paving the way for him to establish a Republican majority and make major policy changes on how to interpret and enforce the nation's workplace civil rights laws.
For now, Mr. Trump's move left EEOC without the quorum needed to make key decisions, including rescinding or revising regulations. The president tapped an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida, Brittany Panuccio, to fill one of the vacancies. If she confirmed by the Senate, the EEOC will regain its quorum.
Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, who voted against the regulations because of the abortion provision, has said she will work to change them.
Similar lawsuits challenging the abortion provision are underway, including one filed by 17 states, led by Tennessee and Arkansas. In February, an appeals court ruled that lawsuit could proceed, overturning a lower court's decision to dismiss the complaint.
Under former President Joe Biden, the Justice Department had defended the EEOC against those lawsuits but it is unclear whether it will continue to do so under the Trump administration. The Justice Department did not reply to request for comment on Wednesday's ruling.
Chettiar said the Trump administration is unlikely to appeal the ruling, adding to its significance.
"The impact of this is huge," Chettiar said in an interview with The Associated Press, calling the decision "symbolic and a big signal of where the right is when it comes to the rights of women."
However, the Trump administration has continued defend the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act itself in a lawsuit brought by the state of Texas that seeks to overturn the law in its entirety.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
12 minutes ago
- Fast Company
ICE's new rules for Congress: 72 hours' notice or risk arrest
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has placed new restrictions on Congressional visits, a policy change that is likely to escalate tensions between the controversial federal law enforcement agency and its critics. ICE detailed the policy changes in a memo published to its website. Under the new rules, ICE asserts that lawmakers must give 72 hours of advance notice before visiting an ICE field office. Lawmakers are explicitly allowed by law to visit ICE facilities that 'detain or otherwise house aliens' unannounced, but the agency wants to stop surprise visits to its broader constellation of immigration enforcement centers across the country, which it claims do not meet that criteria. The new guidance comes as Democrats clash with the Trump administration over its immigration crackdown, which has targeted refugees who were offered legal status during the Biden administration, mistakenly deported a Maryland resident to a mega-prison in El Salvador and expanded immigration raids at farms, hotels and restaurants. The policy also states that Congressional staffers must now provide 24 hours of notice before entering a detention facility. 'Visitors attempting to circumvent entry requirements may be subject to arrest or other legal action,' the agency warns. Under its new visitation policy, the agency tries to draw a distinction between its detention facilities and field offices, the latter of which it claims aren't used to detain people. 'ICE does not house aliens at field offices, rather these are working offices where Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) personnel process aliens to make custody determinations based on the specific circumstances of each case,' the memo argues, adding that anyone brought to a field office who needs to be detained is transferred to a purpose-built facility. ICE operates 25 field offices across the country. According to the agency's field office directory, the Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), the ICE law enforcement arm that conducts deportations, 'manages all aspects of the immigration enforcement process' through those offices. ICE clashes with elected officials are escalating In Trump's second term, ICE officers have not hesitated to handcuff, arrest and even press charges against elected officials. Earlier this week, New York City comptroller Brad Lander was arrested at a Manhattan immigration court while escorting a man sought by immigration agents. In a video of the incident, Lander is shown repeatedly asking a group of plainclothes agents if they have a judicial warrant before being wrestled against a wall and removed from the building. In another recent confrontation, California Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from a press conference when he tried to interrupt Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with a question. On Friday, Congressional Democrats sent a letter to Noem and the acting director of ICE accusing the agencies of 'continued obstruction' of legal oversight visits by members of Congress. The lawmakers specifically named a Manhattan field office that normally serves as a brief stop for immigrants moving through the system but is now reportedly overcrowded and forcing people that are detained for multiple days to sleep on the floor. ICE's deputy field director in New York confirmed that multiple detainees slept on the floor or on benches in the facility, an admission the group of Democrats pointed to in their letter demanding access. The lawmakers also demanded that ICE rescind its new guidance claiming that its field offices are not subject to unannounced visits by members of Congress. 'Given the overaggressive and excessive force used to handcuff and detain elected officials in public, DHS's refusal to allow members of Congress to observe the conditions for immigrants behind closed doors begs the obvious question: what are you hiding?' the group of lawmakers wrote.
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why Now Is The Time To Find A Fabulous Gay Financial Advisor
Now is the time vote with your wallet and find an amazing gay financial advisor. It's 2025, and a gay financial advisor just might be right for you. If nothing else, they may make financial planning fun enough for you to take the steps necessary to reach financial freedom and enjoy it along the way. The gay community faces a unique set of challenges when it comes to careers and finances that deserve the best advice available to them, and that may mean choosing an LGBTQ+ friend or even, if available, a gay financial advisor.I'm writing this article during Pride Month, which, despite misinformation circulating on the web, has not been canceled. We also just witnessed the "No Kings Day" protests across the county, reportedly the largest protest in U.S. history. Millions of Americans are ready for change and are often willing to vote with their wallets. Your financial advisor doesn't need to match your political affiliation or sexual orientation. Still, if they see the world differently than you, it might create financial planning blind spots that could be devastating for your finances when things go I'm proud to be a financial planner, sadly, the demographic truth is that the overall financial industry skews mostly older, whiter, more male and socially conservative than the population as a whole. Mind you, just because your adviser is wearing a Maga hat in his profile picture doesn't necessarily mean he (and in this case, he probably is a 'he') is a big homophobe. But aside from some notable, admirable exceptions, fiscal conservatives aren't exactly out there speaking up for LGBT rights. Some may be blatantly hostile to them. It's a double whammy if you are LGBTQ+ and a person of color, an immigrant or the wrong religion. While no specific data shows how many financial advisors are LGBTQ+, we know that more than 76% of Certified Financial Planners™ are male. There has been a significant increase in racial diversity across the 100,000 CFP® in the USA over the past few years. According to the CFP Board's Consumer Sentiment Survey — LGBTQ+ Financial Planning Pulse, same sex married couples are more than twice as likely to be working with a financial planner. Nearly ¾ of LGBTQ+ investors would prefer to work with a gay financial advisor or who identifies as part of a financial advisor who is part of the LGBTQ+ community. What difference does sexual orientation make when it comes to financial planning? Quite simply, the way you spend and allocate your money has everything to do with who you are and how you live. It follows that if someone has a visceral prejudice against your very existence, how can you trust them to have your best interests at heart? So, here are the top reasons you may be happier with an LGBT gay or gay-friendly financial planner. You might as well have a financial planner who is as fabulous as you are. The Worldview Of Your Gay Financial Advisor Every time I attend a financial industry conference or interact with other financial advisors, I can't help but notice how conservative many of them are. They may be nice guys, but if they don't think you deserve to exist, they likely aren't going to give you the best advice to reach financial freedom or have the best options to build your family. I've spoken to many women who described their families' (or husbands') financial advisors as creepy or even lecherous on a few occasions. It's not exactly how I'd want to be described, nor is it a skill I'd look for in my financial advisor. The right gay financial advisors will more likely share your social and political views. Hopefully, this means hiring someone you can trust. If you find that you can more easily trust someone who is gay or gay-friendly, then so be it. We might also appreciate it when you say you want to retire to Palm Springs or spend summers in Provincetown, not to mention not coming back and scolding you for what could seem like an exorbitant travel budget compared to the average retiree. Beyond the fun aspects, such as where to retire and how much to spend on travel or entertainment as we age, there are several other considerations for gay retirees to consider. A gay financial advisor may have better insights into where you can retire and get the healthcare you need without too much homophobia getting in the way. Likewise, long-term care planning is different for gay couples without children. Many in the gay community have expressed interest in retiring abroad. The number of people reaching out to me on this topic has skyrocketed since the last presidential election. People I know who were considering retiring abroad have pulled the trigger and are making it happen. Gay retirees are not alone in this desire to escape the U.S. I've seen many other people put plans in place just in case they need to move Best Gay Financial Advisor Advantage - Lifestyle Comprehension Walking down the street in Palm Springs, Manhattan or West Hollywood, it is easy to forget that there are still people in the closet. These days, in many parts of the county, staying in may actually be a matter of survival. We'd like to think that the closet is history, but in many parts of the country, staying 'in' can literally be a matter of survival. Throughout the last 20 years working as a fabulous financial advisor, I've spoken with a wide variety of people across the LGBTQ+ spectrum who were fearful of coming out to their financial advisor. This is a person you are entrusting to your financial future. If they don't know what truly motivates you and what you are looking to accomplish, how can they offer the best financial advice for your specific goals and the timeframe in which to achieve them? I've also literally reviewed financial plans where the sex of the second spouse was changed to cover the fact that this was a same-sex couple. Two glaring problems present themselves here: 1) The input of both spouses was not included in the financial plan. Financial Planning for couples (gay or straight) is not a solo sport. 2) Healthcare needs and life expectancy differ significantly when a couple consists of two women versus two men. The difference may not be dramatic now, but it can prove quite sizable over Marriage Equality Mean The End Of Gay-Specific Financial Planning The good news is that the LGBTQ community has achieved legal marriage equality. With that equality comes all the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. When it comes to income taxes and estate planning, this has significantly helped level the playing field for LGBT citizens by granting access to spousal benefits, such as Social Security and additional retirement account options. There are currently nine states with proposals attacking same-sex marriage. Five of the measures urge the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which granted same-sex couples nationwide the right to marry. While I am optimistic that at least those who are already married won't see their marriage nullified, our community needs to be vigilant to maintain our hard-fought and well-deserved rights. Either way, marriage equality does not mean an end to the unique financial challenges facing the LGBTQ+ community. If nothing else, gay seniors may differ in priorities, interests, hobbies and ideal retirement For Your Fabulously Gay Financial Plan Choosing the best gay financial advisor is one of the most important decisions you'll ever make. Here's what to look for in a financial advisor: If your advisor was more likely to be storming the Capitol on January 6 than voting for marriage equality, it may be time to think about your financial advisor relationship. The days are gone of having to search for a financial advisor near me and working with the person who is closest to me. Gay business owner? There is a financial advisor who specializes in that. Gay couple looking to retire abroad. Likewise, there is someone who specializes in that. The list goes on, so there is no reason to settle for anything less than fabulous financial advice.
Associated Press
15 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal from an Illinois toy company pushing for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. had asked the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the appeal, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law ahead of arguments set for late July. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency. ___
