Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—Fifth Circuit Upholds Enactment of The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, (Aug 27, 2025)

By Christine Bestor Townsend, Fiona Ong and Tiffany Cox Stacy of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart

On August 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned a federal district court's decision to block the enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) against the State of Texas. Following the passage of the PWFA in 2022, the State of Texas sued to enjoin the law, arguing that the U.S. House of Representatives exceeded its authority in enacting the PWFA in violation of the U.S. Constitution's quorum requirements. A federal district court agreed and had enjoined the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from enforcing the law as to the State of Texas—until the Fifth Circuit's ruling.

Quick Hits

• In State of Texas v. Bondi, the Fifth Circuit overturned a district court's injunction that had prevented enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) against the State of Texas as an employer.

• The court found that the U.S. House of Representatives' use of proxy voting during the COVID-19 pandemic did not violate the U.S. Constitution's Quorum Clause.

• The PWFA broadly requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with limitations arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions—but regulatory changes may be on the horizon.

Background

The PFWA, which went into effect on June 27, 2023, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to workers with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship. This is true regardless of whether the "known limitations" constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Thereafter, the EEOC began enforcement of the PWFA and issued its final regulations, explaining in an associated press release that it "provides clarity to employers and workers about who is covered, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, how individuals can request reasonable accommodations, and numerous concrete examples."

The PWFA faced immediate legal challenge, including by the State of Texas. The State of Texas's argument focused on the U.S. Constitution's Quorum Clause, which requires a majority of members of the House or U.S. Senate to be present in order to constitute the necessary quorum (or majority percentage) to pass legislation. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the House implemented a rule that allowed its nonpresent members to vote by proxy. And it was pursuant to this rule that the PWFA was passed.

The District Court's Injunction

The district court agreed with the State of Texas that the U.S. Congress violated the Constitution when it included physically absent members in the quorum count for passage of the PWFA. Because Texas requested an injunction only on its own behalf, the court prohibited enforcement of the law by the EEOC only as to the State of Texas, leaving it in effect as to all other covered employers.

The Fifth Circuit's Opinion

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that in-person voting was not required under the Quorum Clause. The Fifth Circuit found that the plain language of the Quorum Clause does not explicitly require physical presence for voting. The court highlighted that historical practices dating back to 1789 support the notion that a quorum can be presumed even if a majority of members are not physically present. The court also emphasized that the Constitution was designed to adapt to changing circumstances over time.

Thus, the Fifth Circuit held, "The House's proxy-voting rule did not violate anyone's fundamental rights. There is a reasonable relationship between the rule and the result it seeks—majoritarian rule. And the constitutional text, history, and tradition indicate that the Quorum Clause contains no physical-presence requirement that the House's rule could have flouted." With this, the court vacated the district court's injunction, allowing the PWFA to be enforced against the State of Texas.

Implications for Employers

This case affirms the constitutionality of the PWFA, which has been in effect for private employers for more than two years. With limited exception on the issue of abortion, the EEOC's final regulations remain in force nationwide, now including Texas's public employers. Notably, however, the EEOC under the Trump administration has indicated that it intends to rescind these Biden-era regulations, which may ease the accommodation requirements currently imposed on employers.

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.

Christine Bestor Townsend

Fiona Ong

Tiffany Cox Stacy

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart

Peachtree Tower

191 Peachtree St NW #4800

Atlanta, GA 30308 United States

Tel.: +1 404 881-1300

E-mail: client.services@ogletreedeakins.com

URL: www.ogletree.com/

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

Attorneys: Christine Bestor Townsend, Fiona Ong and Tiffany Cox Stacy (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart).

ExpertInsights: ExpertInsights Discrimination SexDiscrimination PregnancyDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination FederalLegislation Procedure