ACLU & NWLC Submit Brief in Support of Landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
More than 20 Labor, Workers’ Rights, and Gender Justice Organizations Submit an Amicus Brief Opposing Attack on Workplace Accommodations
WASHINGTON — A broad coalition of more than 20 labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arkansas, the National Women’s Law Center, and the law firm Katz Banks Kumin — filed an amicus brief yesterday in State of Tennessee v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission supporting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations, due to become effective on June 18, 2024, provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections. In April, 17 states — all of which ban or impose significant restrictions on abortion — filed suit challenging the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion among the pregnancy-related conditions entitled to accommodation under the statute, and seeking to nullify the regulations in their entirety. Earlier this month, the states filed a motion asking the court to hold the new regulations in abeyance while the lawsuit is pending. The amicus brief filed by the ACLU, the ACLU of Arkansas, the National Women’s Law Center, and Katz Banks Kumin supports the EEOC’s opposition to that effort, urging that the regulations be permitted to go into effect on schedule.
Congress passed the PWFA to ensure that workers affected by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions” could obtain the reasonable accommodations they need – before, during, and after pregnancy. The phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions,” comes directly from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 and from the time of its adoption has been interpreted by courts and the EEOC to include abortion.
The ACLU-NWLC brief shows how abortion is a part of the full spectrum of pregnancy-related needs that the PWFA is intended to protect. It also documents the dangerous consequences of denying abortion patients access to job-protected time off, particularly in light of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which created “abortion deserts” in vast parts of the country, requiring long travel and often multiple days off work to reach the nearest provider. Because vast swaths of the U.S. workforce lack any access to job-protected leave, the brief shows how the PWFA is vital to assure that workers seeking abortion are not forced to choose between obtaining needed care and keeping their jobs.
For example, Mylissa Farmer was working in a low-wage job in Missouri when she suffered a miscarriage a year and a half before the PWFA’s enactment. After her amniotic fluid ruptured when she was 17 weeks pregnant, an ER doctor informed her she needed an abortion or risk dying from a hemorrhage or sepsis. But her local hospital denied her emergency abortion care, claiming its hands were tied under the state’s abortion ban. She and her partner then spent four days crossing state lines searching for treatment until she finally received a life-saving abortion in Illinois.
“During this period, my employer called multiple times pressuring me to return to work. The doctor insisted I take two weeks to heal, but I pleaded for the greenlight to return to work after only two days. I had no alternative. I couldn’t afford to lose my job. Yet, I was still reprimanded often for missing work related to my pregnancy loss,” Farmer said. “This compounded trauma upon trauma. Had the PWFA existed back then, I would have been able to request the time I needed to receive care and heal properly. All pregnant workers deserve this type of protection, including when they need an abortion. The EEOC’s rule will help make sure that workers are able to fully enjoy their rights under the new law.”
The brief presents multiple other accounts of workers denied needed accommodations for a host of pregnancy-related needs since the PWFA went into effect last year, illustrating why the EEOC’s regulations are key to the new law’s enforcement. These accounts, disproportionately reported by workers in low-wage and male-dominated industries, include:
- A warehouse worker who returned to work the day after obtaining an abortion due to a fatal fetal condition, even though her job involved prolonged standing and heavy lifting and her doctor advised a week off from work, because she could not risk being fired.
- A pregnant worker whose ectopic pregnancy was not timely diagnosed because she could not take off work for medical appointments, putting her at risk of a ruptured fallopian tube and requiring surgery.
- A pregnant steelworker whose employer forced her on leave, then demoted her, when she sought to be excused from operating heavy machinery during her second trimester.
- A pregnant security worker whose employer’s delay in responding to her request for restroom accommodations resulted in her hospitalization for preterm contractions that her doctor attributed to her lack of bathroom breaks.
- A lactating sales worker whose employer told her that she needed to “make up” the time she spent pumping or risk discipline for failing to meet quotas.
- A pregnant mechanic whose employer forced her on leave when she requested temporary reassignment to an air-conditioned space to safeguard her health from dangerous heat.
“The PWFA’s promise for workers’ well-being and economic security will remain unfulfilled if the EEOC’s regulations cannot go into effect.” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Women's Rights Project. “Let’s be clear: Extreme politicians are trying to use this case to block historic civil rights protections from taking effect for millions of workers.”
“For many years, the ACLU of Arkansas has steadfastly defended the rights of pregnant Arkansans against continual encroachments by the state into people’s private lives,” said Holly Dickson, executive director, ACLU of Arkansas. “This lawsuit by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin attacking pregnant Arkansans’ rights is a terrible overreach motivated by political theatrics and not genuine concern. He needs to refocus his efforts away from hurting vulnerable people and instead tackle the real and urgent issues Arkansans face.”
“This lawsuit once again exposes that extremists are willing to sacrifice the health and economic security of millions of workers and their families to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, NWLC director of workplace equality. “This brief, including the devastating accounts of workers denied needed accommodations, shows why the EEOC’s regulations are essential to ensure that no worker has to choose between their well-being and their job.”
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090