In a significant legal setback for federal regulators, a Louisiana federal judge has halted an attempt by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to mandate accommodations for employees undergoing elective abortions. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge David Joseph, rebuffed the EEOC’s interpretation that federal pregnancy accommodation laws extend to cover abortions.
Judge Joseph, appointed during the administration of former President Donald Trump, criticized the EEOC’s stance, calling it an overreach and accusing the agency of engaging in semantic acrobatics to justify its position. The decision responds to challenges brought by Louisiana and Mississippi, alongside groups associated with the Catholic Church, who argued that abortion does not constitute a medical condition necessitating workplace accommodation.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill applauded the ruling, emphasizing that Congress never intended for pregnancy-related laws to encompass abortion. Meanwhile, representatives from the Catholic Church, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, condemned the EEOC’s rule as an abuse of power.
This judicial intervention contrasts sharply with a recent Arkansas ruling upholding the EEOC’s interpretation, underscoring a brewing legal clash that could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The conflicting decisions underscore the deep divisions over the legal status of abortion and its implications under federal employment law.
The EEOC’s rule, slated to take effect imminently, implements a 2022 law requiring employers to accommodate pregnancy-related medical needs. However, with this injunction, its application to abortions remains uncertain pending further legal proceedings.
The case, titled Louisiana v. EEOC and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC, is expected to influence future interpretations of federal pregnancy laws and their boundaries regarding abortion.
