/>iSince its enactment in 2023, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and its 2024 implementing regulations have drawn a firestorm of criticism from religious and faith-based employers over its employment-related protections for employees seeking or obtaining an abortion. If the recent spate of decisions from within the Fifth Circuit is any indication, the legal tempest shows no sign of relenting.
Most of the controversy around the PWFA stems from the law’s imposition of a duty on employers to reasonably accommodate persons “having or choosing not to have an abortion.” Strict construction challengers contend that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) exceeded its regulatory authority and the plain text of the statute by interpreting the PWFA’s coverage of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” to include abortion care. Other objectors argue that accommodating any person seeking or recovering from an abortion would impose an undue burden because of their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs.
One such challenge was brought by a confederation of four Roman Catholic Church-affiliated entities, spearheaded by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In May 2025, a federal judge in Louisiana granted the Catholic petitioners a limited victory when he vacated the portion of the PWFA regulations requiring reasonable accommodation in the instance of “purely elective abortions.” However, the court opined in a footnote that the order did not alter the PWFA regulation’s reasonable accommodation obligation with respect to “terminations of pregnancy or abortions stemming from the underlying treatment of a medical condition related to pregnancy.”
Empowered by the decision but disappointed by its limited reach, the Bishops asked the district court to expand on its ruling by vacating the reasonable accommodation requirement even when employees seek or obtain abortion care to treat underlying pregnancy-related medical conditions. The Bishops also asked the court to read into the rule an exemption for religious employers under the First Amendment free exercise clause and/or pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, issues the district court had deferred for further consideration. Before the district court ruled on the renewed motion, the Bishops filed an interlocutory appeal and a nearly identical motion for preliminary injunction in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that accommodating any abortion—even a life-saving procedure—would cause them irreparable harm.
The Fifth Circuit granted an administrative stay as to the footnote in the district court’s decision preserving the PWFA’s reasonable accommodation requirement for medically advisable abortions. Despite the confusion caused by the Bishops’ two-front assault on the regulation, the Louisiana federal court relented this week, writing in an August 15, 2025 order:
Although this Court has not yet adjudicated and has expressly retained jurisdiction over the Bishops’ First Amendment and religious liberty claims, it is clear that any action by this Court with respect to the pending Motion is inextricably intertwined with matters pending before the Fifth Circuit and that a ruling by this Court would likely “alter the status of the case as it rests before” the Fifth Circuit. Considering the foregoing, it is ordered that the motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal … filed by the is STAYED pending resolution of the matters pending before the Fifth Circuit or further order of this Court.
Thus, for now, at least, the fate of the PWFA’s abortion-related employment protections rests in the hands of the Fifth Circuit panel hearing the motion and interlocutory appeal. The appeal is fully briefed but oral argument has not yet been set.
In an interesting twist, the EEOC—which, as the agency responsible for promulgating the regulations, is the defendant in the Bishops’ challenge—is no longer chaired by Biden-appointed Charlotte Burrows as it was at the time of the PWFA’s enactment, but is instead now overseen by Andrea Lucas, a Trump appointee and a vociferous objector to the PWFA regulations. Although the EEOC ostensibly objected to the Bishops’ legal challenge before the Fifth Circuit [EEOC Answering Brief], its 9-page answering brief was hardly a barnburner. Rather than defend the substance of the rule, the Lucas-led EEOC argued that the Bishops faced no imminent risk of irreparable harm because the EEOC had not yet investigated, and did not seem likely to investigate, any employer for failing to reasonably accommodate an individual seeking a medically necessary abortion.
The strategy comes as little surprise given Ms. Lucas’s strongly held and publicly declared convictions on the PWFA’s abortion-related provisions. Ms. Lucas has vowed to revisit the regulation inasmuch as it relates to abortion-related accommodation as soon as the EEOC achieves a quorum. But until such time as the regulation is amended or rescinded, employers should continue to follow the complex web of lawsuits construing the PWFA to ensure they comply with their legal obligations.
