8th Circuit Changes Course in Standing for States to Sue EEOC over Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

The 8th Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a case brought by several states (including Missouri) seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of part of the Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act (“Act”) because they allege the rule is unconstitutional. Specifically, the states are challenging a rule that requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy or childbirth, or a related medical condition. The regulations promulgated by the EEOC implementing the Act include a list of example conditions that are or may be considered “related medical conditions”, which included “termination of pregnancy, including via miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion.”

The states bringing this lawsuit argue this rule requires them as employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees of the state who seek abortions under any circumstances. The states alleged the rule 1) is arbitrary and capricious, 2) exceeds the EEOC’s authority established under the Act, 3) violates the First Amendment and the principles of federalism under the Constitution, and 4) the EEOC’s “for-cause removal structure is unconstitutional under Article II of the Constitution.” The district court dismissed the case due to a lack of standing because the states failed to establish an injury in fact that is imminent. Therefore, the state’s motion for a preliminary injunction was also dismissed as moot and because they failed to establish irreparable harm.

The 8th Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and found that as employers who are governed by the EEOC regulations, the states have standing to sue the EEOC. The Court additionally found that the state’s alleged injury (that the Act requires them as employers to provide accommodations they would not otherwise provide and that they allegedly are being barred from engaging in “pro-life” messaging) was caused by the agency action, and that a judicial decision setting aside the action would provide a remedy. The EEOC maintained its position that the rule does not cause an injury under an employee requests an accommodation related to an abortion and does not require immediate action by the states. The Court rejected this argument because “[a]n employer cannot meet its obligations under the Rule without taking steps to ensure that its employees know their rights and obligations under the Rule.”