Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • EMPLOYEE LEAVE—8th Cir.: FMLA interference claim of Hardee’s store manager, fired after diabetic episode, revived by en banc court
    • CONTRACT CLAIMS—8th Cir.: Preliminary injunction to enforce restrictive covenants in employment agreement denied where term of agreement had expired
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY–E.D. Pa.: Demoted police officer obtains equitable and other relief for ADA violations
    • DISCRIMINATION—RACE—W.D. Wis.: Demotion to ‘shield’ white university director from race-related backlash may be unlawful
    • DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—3d Cir.: Christian firefighter who refused to shave beard revives Title VII, Free Exercise claims
    • DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Md.: Evidentiary requests denied in COVID-19 vaccine mandate religious discrimination case
    • DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—W.D. Va.: Lawsuit alleging COVID-19 vaccine religious discrimination dismissed in part
    • DOL NEWS—FY 2026 budget eliminates OFCCP, cuts nearly 4K jobs
    • DOL NEWS—New opinion letter program intends to expand compliance assistance
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Court strikes down rule requiring employer accommodations for certain abortions
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—New York employers need to prepare for three major workplace laws taking effect in June
    • FEDERAL REGULATIONS—OPM initiates rulemaking on suitability criteria, applicability for certain federal employees
    • IMMIGRATION—D.C. Cir.: Dutch dressage rider revives visa suit questioning application of ‘willful misrepresentation’ guidance
    • NLRB NEWS—Memo advises Region that charge against Starbucks Corp. should be dismissed
    • PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—9th Cir.: Stay rejected in government’s attempts to layoff federal workers
    • TORT CLAIMS—D. Or.: Jury must decide Columbia Sportswear’s trade secrets suit against former employees
    • TORT CLAIMS—W.D. Pa.: Glass processing equipment seller states misappropriation claims against competitor
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—Court strikes down rule requiring employer accommodations for certain abortions, (Jun 2, 2025)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Phelps Dunbar
    Organizations Mentioned:Phelps Dunbar, LLP

    By Jessica Huffman of Phelps Dunbar LLP

    A federal judge in Louisiana recently vacated part of a rule that required covered employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees in connection with abortions considered elective, or not medically necessary. The ruling impacts employer obli ...

    By Jessica Huffman of Phelps Dunbar LLP

    A federal judge in Louisiana recently vacated part of a rule that required covered employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees in connection with abortions considered elective, or not medically necessary. The ruling impacts employer obligations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued the final rule as part of its duty to implement the PWFA. The PWFA requires employers to "make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee," unless it would impose an undue hardship.

    In the final rule, the EEOC included "termination of pregnancy, including via miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion" as examples of "related medical conditions" that require accommodation under the PWFA. The EEOC further explained in its interpretive guidance that "having or choosing not to have an abortion" is a type of medical condition in which the relation to pregnancy is readily apparent.

    Shortly after the EEOC issued the final rule, the states of Louisiana and Mississippi and several religious groups filed suits against the EEOC. They challenged the validity of the rule's inclusion of elective abortions among pregnancy-related medical conditions on the ground that it was not authorized by Congress. The court agreed, holding that the EEOC's rule interpreting the PWFA to include an elective abortion accommodation "clearly and unequivocally exceeds" the EEOC's statutory authority.

    The court pointed to the fact that Congress included no reference to abortion in the PWFA and found that the exclusion was intentional. The court explained that, had Congress "wanted to include an abortion accommodation provision in the PWFA, it surely would have done so."

    The court vacated the portion of the final rule that included "abortion" as a "related medical condition" of pregnancy and childbirth. The court also vacated any implementing regulations or guidance to the extent they require or suggest to employers that they must provide employees with accommodations for what the court called "purely elective abortions."

    However, the court made clear that abortions stemming from underlying treatment of a medical condition related to pregnancy remain covered by the PWFA. In such a situation, the crucial fact is the pregnancy-related medical condition necessitating the abortion, and not the abortion itself. In other words, employers are required to accommodate abortions stemming from pregnancy-related medical conditions (subject to the undue hardship exception).

    In addition, although the court ruled that the PWFA does not require an employer to accommodate purely elective abortions, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) continues to prohibit discrimination against an employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The PDA has been interpreted to include an employee's "decision to have or not have an abortion." An employer cannot discriminate against an employee because the employee has had (or plans to have) an abortion, whether considered medically necessary or elective.

    The court's ruling means employers are not required to accommodate an employee for an abortion considered purely elective, at least for now. But it does not relieve employers of the obligation to avoid discrimination against an employee for having (or planning to have) an abortion. The line between these duties can be quite murky, so employers should stay aware of their obligations under both the PWFA and the PDA.

    The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

    Jessica Huffman

    Phelps Dunbar LLP

    365 Canal Street

    Suite 2000

    New Orleans

    LA 70130-6534

    United States

    Tel.:+1 504 566-1311

    E-mail: Ann.theriot@phelps.com

    URL: www.phelps.com/

    (c) Mondaq Ltd, 2025 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com

    Attorneys: (Phelps Dunbar).

    ExpertInsights: ExpertInsights FederalRegulations PregnancyDiscrimination IndustryNewsTrends ESGNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use