The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which was passed in December 2022, requires a covered employer to provide reasonable accommodations for a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer’s operation of the business.

In April 2024, the EEOC published its Final Rule and Interpretive Guidance (“Final Rule”) implementing the PWFA. As part of the Final Rule, the EEOC adopted a very broad interpretation of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” to encompass current pregnancy, past pregnancy, potential pregnancy, lactation (including breastfeeding and pumping), use of contraception, menstruation, infertility and fertility treatments, endometriosis, miscarriage, stillbirth, and decisions regarding abortion, among other conditions.

Shortly after the Final Rule was published, 17 states challenged its lawfulness, specifically focusing on its requirements for accommodating individuals seeking elective abortions, alleging that the Final Rule conflicts with the states’ policies.

Specifically, the states sought an injunction to prevent enforcement and a declaratory judgment declaring the Final Rule unlawful. The states specifically sought a judicial determination that:

1. The Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious;
2. The agency’s definition of “related medical conditions” exceeds the EEOC’s authority under the PWFA;
3. The Final Rule violates the First Amendment and constitutional principles of federalism; and
4. The EEOC’s for-cause removal structure is unconstitutional under Article II of the Constitution.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas initially dismissed the matter, without prejudice, in June 2024, citing lack of standing. In particular, the district court concluded that the states lacked standing to sue because they did not allege an injury-in-fact arising from the Final Rule.

On February 20, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in State of Tennessee et al. v. EEOC, No. 24-2249 (Feb. 20, 2025), reversed the district court’s decision, finding that the states do have standing to challenge the Final Rule in their capacity as “employers covered by the Act and the [Final] Rule.” Specifically, the court determined that the Final Rule “requires immediate action by the States to conform to the Rule, and this action produces an injury in fact.” The matter was remanded to the district court for further consideration. The Eighth Circuit expressed no opinion on the merits of the claims.

While this particular lawsuit is limited to the states’ claims about the requirements imposed on them by the Final Rule, the trial court’s ruling on the claims could affect other public and private employers. Employers may want to monitor this case. While the matter is pending, and despite signals that the EEOC may no longer defend the Final Rule and Acting Chair Andrea Lucas’ recent statement that she intends for the Commission to reconsider portions of the Final Rule when it regains a quorum, the Final Rule and the obligations it imposes on employers remain in effect at this time.