PWFA Litigation Update: The Status of the Abortion Provisions

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act took effect in June 2023 and represented one of the most significant expansions of pregnancy-related workplace protections in decades. The EEOC's final implementing regulations took effect in June 2024 and included provisions extending PWFA coverage to accommodations related to abortion and contraception use. Those provisions immediately drew legal challenges from state attorneys general, religious employers, and other parties. The resulting litigation has fragmented PWFA enforcement on the abortion-related provisions in ways that continue to evolve.

This post is a companion to our overview of pregnancy discrimination and accommodation rights for Ohio employees. It focuses specifically on the litigation challenging the EEOC's final rule and what that litigation means for Ohio practitioners, employers, and employees. Anyone navigating a PWFA accommodation request involving an abortion-related condition should be aware of the current state of the law and the unsettled aspects of it.

The Statutory Background

The PWFA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for "known limitations" related to "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions," unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. The statute does not itself define "related medical conditions." Implementing that phrase was left to the EEOC through rulemaking.

In April 2024, the EEOC issued its final implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1636. The regulations defined "related medical conditions" broadly, expressly including conditions related to abortion (whether spontaneous or elective), contraception use, infertility and fertility treatments, miscarriage, stillbirth, lactation, postpartum recovery, and a wide range of other conditions. The regulations took effect on June 18, 2024.

The decision to include abortion in the list of covered "related medical conditions" was the principal point of contention. The EEOC took the position that abortion has long been recognized as a pregnancy-related condition under federal antidiscrimination law, citing Title VII case law and the legislative history of the PWFA. Opponents argued that the EEOC exceeded its statutory authority, that the statute did not unambiguously include abortion, and that the rule raised First Amendment, Spending Clause, and major-questions concerns.

The Principal Challenges

Multiple lawsuits were filed challenging the abortion-related provisions of the final rule. The cases generally fall into three categories: state attorney general challenges, religious employer challenges, and other private-party suits.

State attorney general challenges

Several state attorneys general filed suit challenging the final rule. Two of the most prominent are:

State of Tennessee, et al. v. EEOC, filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas, brought by a coalition of state attorneys general. The states argued that the EEOC exceeded its statutory authority and that requiring states as employers to provide abortion-related accommodations violated state sovereignty and the Spending Clause. The case sought a nationwide injunction against enforcement of the abortion-related provisions.

State of Louisiana v. EEOC, filed in the Western District of Louisiana by Louisiana and Mississippi. This case resulted in a preliminary injunction barring the EEOC from enforcing the abortion-related provisions against state employers in Louisiana and Mississippi. The injunction was based on the court's view that the EEOC had likely exceeded its authority and that the states would face irreparable harm without injunctive relief.

Religious employer challenges

Religious employers filed separate challenges grounded primarily in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment. The Catholic Benefits Association and several Catholic dioceses brought actions arguing that requiring religious employers to provide accommodations for abortion-related conditions would substantially burden the exercise of religion. At least one court has issued injunctive relief on RFRA grounds protecting religious employers from enforcement of the abortion-related provisions.

Other challenges

Additional litigation has come from private employers and trade associations. The legal theories overlap with the state and religious challenges but vary in specifics. None has yet produced a definitive nationwide resolution.

The Core Legal Questions

The pending challenges raise several overlapping legal questions. Anyone working with the PWFA should understand the framework even if the specific outcomes remain uncertain.

Did the EEOC exceed its statutory authority?

This is the central question. The PWFA requires accommodation of "known limitations" related to "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." Challengers argue that "related medical conditions" does not naturally include abortion, particularly elective abortion, and that Congress would have spoken more clearly if it had intended to require accommodation of abortion-related conditions. The EEOC argues that the phrase is broad and that decades of Title VII case law have recognized abortion as a pregnancy-related condition.

The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), which overruled Chevron deference, has made this question harder for the EEOC. Without Chevron deference, courts decide the meaning of statutory terms independently. Some lower courts have used Loper Bright to find against the EEOC on this issue. Others have upheld the regulations on the basis that "related medical conditions" is genuinely broad and that abortion has historically been treated as pregnancy-related.

The major questions doctrine

Some challengers argue that requiring abortion-related accommodations is a question of major economic and political significance that Congress would have addressed clearly if it had intended that result. The doctrine, articulated in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Biden v. Nebraska (2023), requires clear congressional authorization for agency actions of major significance. Courts have divided on whether the abortion-related PWFA provisions implicate the doctrine.

Spending Clause and state sovereignty

State challenges have argued that requiring states as employers to provide abortion-related accommodations exceeds the federal government's authority under the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment, particularly where state law restricts abortion. Lower court rulings on this issue have varied.

Religious liberty

RFRA claims by religious employers raise distinct issues. RFRA requires that federal action that substantially burdens religious exercise be the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. Religious employer challenges have sought and in some cases obtained relief on the ground that the abortion-related provisions impose a substantial burden without satisfying that standard.

The Current Patchwork

As of mid-2026, the enforceability of the abortion-related provisions varies by jurisdiction. Preliminary injunctions are in place in some states for some categories of employers. Religious employers in some jurisdictions are protected by injunctive relief. State employers in some states are similarly protected. Private employers in most jurisdictions are not currently subject to injunctive relief, although appellate decisions could change that.

The patchwork creates real complexity for multistate employers and for employees seeking accommodations. An employee whose limitation arises from an abortion-related condition may have rights under the EEOC final rule in some jurisdictions and not in others. Employees should consult with an attorney rather than assume that the EEOC rule is or is not enforceable in their specific situation.

What This Means for Ohio Practitioners

Ohio is not a party to the principal state attorney general challenges. The Sixth Circuit has not, to date, issued a definitive ruling on the abortion-related provisions. The practical implications for Ohio practitioners are several.

The core PWFA framework is intact. The vast majority of pregnancy and childbirth-related accommodations are not the subject of litigation. Lactation, postpartum recovery, miscarriage, fertility treatments, gestational diabetes, and the full range of common pregnancy-related limitations remain covered by the PWFA. The pending litigation should not affect the analysis of typical accommodation requests.

Abortion-related accommodation requests in Ohio. Because no Sixth Circuit or Ohio-specific injunction is currently in place, the EEOC final rule's provisions on abortion-related accommodations remain technically enforceable in Ohio. But the legal landscape is genuinely unsettled, and employees and employers should not assume the rule will continue to apply without change. Employers responding to an abortion-related accommodation request should consult counsel about the specific facts. Employees seeking accommodation should be aware that the EEOC may or may not pursue enforcement depending on how the broader litigation evolves.

Ohio law operates in parallel. Independent of the PWFA, Ohio's Civil Rights Act (R.C. 4112) prohibits pregnancy discrimination. Title VII's PDA continues to require non-discriminatory treatment of pregnant workers. Title VII case law has long recognized abortion as pregnancy-related for purposes of antidiscrimination analysis. None of this is affected by the PWFA challenges. An Ohio employee facing adverse action because of an abortion-related condition may still have a claim under existing antidiscrimination law even if a PWFA accommodation claim is uncertain.

The interactive process matters more than ever. Whatever the eventual outcome of the litigation, an employer that engages in good faith interactive dialogue and offers a reasonable accommodation when one is available reduces its legal exposure substantially. Employees should make accommodation requests in writing. Employers should document their interactive process. Both sides benefit when the procedural framework is followed.

What to Watch

Several developments will shape the law in 2026 and beyond.

Appellate decisions. Cases at the district court level will reach circuit courts. The first appellate decisions on the abortion-related provisions will significantly influence how the law develops, particularly if circuits split.

Supreme Court review. A circuit split would likely lead to Supreme Court review. The Court has shown interest in cases involving administrative authority, religious liberty, and the scope of federal employment statutes. PWFA litigation has the elements that draw Supreme Court attention.

EEOC enforcement priorities. The EEOC's enforcement priorities will affect how aggressively the abortion-related provisions are enforced in jurisdictions where they remain operative. Changes in administration can affect this without requiring statutory amendment.

Congressional action. Congress could clarify the statute by amendment. To date, no legislative consensus has emerged on either expanding or restricting the PWFA's scope.

The Bottom Line

The PWFA's core accommodation requirement remains in force everywhere. The litigation around the abortion-related provisions does not affect the typical pregnancy accommodation request. But the legal landscape on abortion-related accommodations specifically is unsettled and continues to evolve. Ohio practitioners advising clients on these issues should stay current on the litigation, understand the parallel availability of Title VII and Ohio Civil Rights Act protections, and emphasize the interactive process as the procedural framework most likely to produce defensible outcomes regardless of how the underlying litigation develops.