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
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Officers throw flash bangs to disperse crowd protesting immigration enforcement in Los Angeles
Federal immigration authorities carried out enforcement activities at businesses across Los Angeles on Friday, prompting clashes outside at least one location as authorities threw flash bangs to try to disperse a crowd that had gathered in protest. Immigration advocates confirmed at least 45 people were arrested without warrants across seven locations, including two Home Depots, a store in the fashion district and a doughnut shop, said Angelica Salas, executive director for the Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, at an afternoon press conference denouncing the activity. Federal immigration authorities have been ramping up arrests across the country to fulfill President Donald Trump's promise of mass deportations. Todd Lyons, the head of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, defended his tactics earlier this week against criticism that authorities are being too heavy-handed. He has said ICE is averaging about 1,600 arrests per day and that the agency has arrested 'dangerous criminals.' Protests recently broke out after an immigration action at a restaurant in San Diego and in Minneapolis when federal officials in tactical gear showed up in a Latino neighborhood for an operation they said was about a criminal case, not immigration. In Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass said the activity was meant to 'sow terror.' 'As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place. These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city,' Bass said. Salas, of CHIRLA, echoed that language. 'Our community is under attack and is being terrorized. These are workers, these are fathers, these are mothers, and this has to stop. Immigration enforcement that is terrorizing our families throughout this country and picking up our people that we love must stop now,' Salas said, surrounded by a crowd holding signs protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE declined to discuss the details of its operations. The agency said it routinely makes arrests of noncitizens 'who commit crimes and other individuals who have violated our nation's immigration laws,' said an emailed statement from an unnamed spokesperson. Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe, a spokesperson for Homeland Security Investigations, a branch of ICE, told the Los Angeles Times that federal agents were executing search warrants related to the harboring of people illegally in the country. In Los Angeles, videos from bystanders and television news crews captured people being walked across a Home Depot parking lot by federal agents as well as clashes that broke out at other detention sites. KTLA showed aerial footage of agents outside a clothing store in the fashion district leading detainees out of a building and toward two large white vans waiting just outside in a parking lot. The hands of the detained individuals were tied behind their backs. The agents patted them down before loading them into the vans. The agents wore vests with the agency acronyms FBI, ICE and HSI for Homeland Security Investigations. Armed agents used yellow police tape to keep crowds on the street and sidewalk away from the operations. Aerial footage of the same location broadcast by KABC-TV showed officers throwing smoke bombs or flash bangs on the street to disperse the people so they could drive away in SUVs, vans and military-style vehicles. The station showed one person running backward with their hands on the hood of a moving white SUV in an apparent attempt to block the vehicle. The person fell backward, landing flat on the ground. The SUV backed up, drove around the individual and sped off as others on the street threw objects at it. Immigrant-rights advocates used megaphones to speak to the workers, reminding them of their constitutional rights and instructing them not to sign anything or say anything to federal agents, the Los Angeles Times reported. Katia Garcia, 18, left school when she learned her father, 37-year-old Marco Garcia, may have been targeted. Katia Garcia, a US citizen, said her father is undocumented and has been in the US for 20 years. 'We never thought this would happen to us,' she told the Los Angeles Times. Eleven of the LA City Council's 15 members issued a statement accusing federal immigration agencies of 'an egregious escalation.' 'This indiscriminate targeting of children and families not only harms the individuals who are directly impacted, but destroys our communities' sense of trust and safety in their own homes,' the statement said.
New York Times
20 minutes ago
- New York Times
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.
Bloomberg
20 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Abrego Garcia Returns to US to Face Charges
"Balance of Power: Late Edition" focuses on the intersection of politics and global business. On today's show, Mary Lovely, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, shares her thoughts on what to expect Monday as US and Chinese negotiators will resume trade talks in London. Leon Panetta, Former US Secretary of Defense, voices his concerns about the US Supreme Court giving DOGE access to social security data after Elon Musk and President Trump's feud. Zeke Hernandez, Associate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, discusses Kilmar Abrego Garcia being brought back to the United States to face criminal charges. (Source: Bloomberg)
