A federal judge in Arkansas dismissed a lawsuit brought by 17 states challenging rules on accommodations for workers seeking abortions, saying the states lacked standing to sue.
In addition to Arkansas, other states that joined the lawsuit were Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia Western.
Republican attorneys general from each state, led by Arkansas and Tennessee, sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April after it issued rules for employers and workers to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The law, passed in 2022, requires many employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant or postpartum employees, including giving employees who undergo an abortion time off to have the procedure and recover.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Arkansas, argued that the regulations go beyond the scope of the 2022 law and questioned any requirement that extends to “elective abortions” where there is no “physical or mental condition related to, affected by or arising from pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions” and requested a preliminary injunction blocking the rule from taking effect until the case can be resolved.
In a 29-page ruling issued Friday, U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. denied the request, saying “the fear of overreach by one branch of the federal government cannot be cured by the overreach of another.”
“Because the States lack standing and have not demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm, the Court need not decide whether they have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits,” Marshall wrote. “There are good arguments on both sides of that issue. The Court also does not need to balance the actions at this time. At bottom, states have not made a compelling case for issuing a nationwide injunction of all EEOC regulation.”
Due to the states’ lack of standing in the matter, Marshall ruled, the court itself lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide the matter.
Through a spokesman, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said he is optimistic the states will ultimately prevail.
“I am disappointed in the court’s ruling, am considering all legal options and remain confident that we will ultimately be successful,” Griffin said in the statement.
In a recent press release, ACLU of Arkansas Executive Director Holly Dickson called the lawsuit politically motivated and an example of “continued encroachments by the state on people’s private lives.”
“This lawsuit by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin attacking the rights of pregnant Arkansas women is a terrible overreach motivated by political theater and not genuine concern,” Dickson said in the statement. “It needs to refocus its efforts so as not to harm vulnerable people and instead address the real and pressing issues facing Arkansans.”
EEOC regulations are also being challenged in another federal lawsuit in Louisiana brought by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups over the abortion provision.
That complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, was consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi asking the judge to postpone enforcement of the EEOC rules pending the outcome of the case.
The ACLU and more than 20 labor and women’s rights groups, including A Better Balance, a nonprofit that led the 10-year campaign to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, filed amicus briefs in both cases arguing that the EEOC rules should go into effect as scheduled. calling them key to the successful implementation of the law.
(Friday) “the ruling in Tennessee v. EEOC is a victory for millions of pregnant and postpartum workers across the country because it allows the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations to go into effect… providing important clarity on how the law works in practice,” said Dina Bakst of A Better Balance.
In their briefs, the groups cited dozens of examples of pregnant workers who approached advocacy groups or filed lawsuits alleging that employers continued to deny them accommodations in violation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
“The relief sought in this case is completely overstated and would have harmed literally millions of people,” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, referring to the lawsuit in Arkansas. “The law has been in place for a year and employers are violating it in the most egregious ways left and right and clearly need guidance.”
The EEOC in its regulations said it was in line with decades of legal precedent establishing that pregnancy discrimination laws include abortion.
Abortion rights advocates have also praised protections under EEOC rules as especially critical in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that struck down the constitutional right to abortion. Women in states with strict abortion restrictions have to travel farther and farther to obtain the procedure, and they need free time to do so.
Ming-Qi Chu, deputy director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, said the main reason for filing the amicus curiae brief was to ensure that the voices of those most affected by the rule are heard.
“I think it’s an important victory and we’re glad that the court seemed to understand that the plaintiffs’ injuries were exaggerated,” Chu said. “When people see a group of states suing the federal government, a voice that is often not heard is that of the workers, and that is why we presented the amicus curiae brief. “We are ensuring that this very important group of stakeholders is heard.”
Keynote USA
For the Latest Local News, Follow Keynote USA Local on Twitter.