Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Allows Lawsuit Challenging EEOC’s PWFA Rules to Proceed

PDF

In a significant legal development, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a lawsuit brought by seventeen Republican-led state attorneys general challenging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s inclusion of abortion among protected pregnancy-related conditions pursuant to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) can move forward.

Background on the PWFA

The PWFA requires an employer to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to an employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions, unless the employer can show that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on operation of the business. The law aims to protect workers who may need temporary changes to their job duties or schedules due to pregnancy or related medical issues. Under the PWFA, employers are mandated to provide accommodations such as more frequent breaks, seating, modified work schedules, and time off for pregnancy-related medical needs, both during pregnancy and after childbirth.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) published its final rule (the “Final Rule”) implementing the PWFA, which went into effect on June 18, 2024. The Final Rule outlines specific accommodations that employers must offer pregnant workers. The Final Rule also includes abortion as a “related medical condition” and extends accommodations to workers who need time off for abortion-related treatments or recovery.

Legal Challenge by 17 States

In response to the Final Rule, a coalition of seventeen state attorneys general, including those from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia, filed a lawsuit challenging the Final Rule. The states contend that the Final Rule exceeds the EEOC’s statutory authority in how it defined “pregnancy-related health conditions” under the PWFA and that the Final Rule conflicts with the states’ policies. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the EEOC’s interpretation of the law, particularly regarding accommodations for individuals seeking elective abortions. After the Final Rule was published, the states sought an injunction to prevent enforcement of the Final Rule and a declaratory judgment declaring it unlawful.

On June 14, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, ruling that the states lacked standing to challenge the Final Rule. In particular, the district court stated that the states lacked standing because they did not allege an injury-in-fact arising from the Final Rule.

The Eight Circuit’s Ruling

On February 20, 2025, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the states do indeed have standing to bring the lawsuit. The three-judge panel concluded that the states were directly impacted by the EEOC’s regulatory actions, as they would need to revise their employment policies and provide training to employees to ensure compliance with the Final Rule. According to the court, the EEOC’s rule “requires immediate action by the States to conform to the Rule, and this action produces an injury in fact.” The court disagreed with the EEOC’s argument that any injury is too speculative, stating that the regulatory burden on state governments was substantial enough to warrant legal standing for the states to challenge the Final Rule.

Notably, the ruling did not address the substantive merits of the states’ legal arguments concerning the content of the Final Rule Instead, it merely allowed the case to proceed, sending it back to the district court for further proceedings. This decision marks the first appellate ruling concerning the EEOC’s implementation of the PWFA, which remains a highly contentious issue in the courts.

Looking Ahead for Employers

Employers should closely monitor the ongoing litigation, as this case could ultimately influence how the PWFA is enforced across the country. While the decision allows the lawsuit to proceed, it does not indicate a final determination on whether the EEOC’s interpretation of the PWFA is legally sound. Additionally, although the Final Rule and its associated employer obligations are currently in effect, it is likely that the EEOC will reconsider parts of the Final Rule once it regains a quorum under the new Trump administration.