Dive Brief:
- A Christian education nonprofit need not comply with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act final rule in a manner that would require it to provide accommodation for abortions, Missouri District Court Judge Roseann Ketchmark ruled Tuesday.
- In The Stanley M. Herzog Foundation v. EEOC, Ketchmark enjoined EEOC’s enforcement of the final rule’s abortion-related elements, finding that the Stanley M. Herzog Foundation was likely to succeed on the merits of its Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim.
- The court did not consider the foundation’s other claims, including violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, due to the foundation’s need to succeed on the merits of only one claim.
Dive Insight:
Ketchmark pointed to two other cases in which district courts have preliminarily enjoined the PWFA final rule — Catholic Benefits Association v. EEOC and Louisiana v. EEOC. In the former case, a North Dakota district court judge similarly found the agency violated the RFRA, while in the latter, a Louisiana district court judge found EEOC lacked statutory authority.
The resulting injunctions have created a patchwork of exceptions for agency enforcement of the final rule’s interpretations on abortion, including the 1,400-member Catholic Benefits Association, which represents 162,000 employees in its health plans; the states of Louisiana and Mississippi; the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; and, now, the Stanley M. Herzog Foundation, an organization that provides Christian programs, training and resources for K-12 schools.
In February, EEOC requested a stay in the case, arguing that Acting Chair Andrea Lucas has publicized her intent to revisit the final rule — particularly the agency’s interpretation of the phrase that begat its inclusion of abortion among its protections — once a quorum is re-established. In a hearing, the agency also argued the foundation lacked standing to bring the case, that it was not ripe and that the foundation could not show irreparable harm.
Ketchmark was unmoved by these arguments, finding the foundation could show standing and sufficient injury-in-fact because it would bear compliance costs, such as revising company policies and implementing training. She also noted that despite Acting Chair Lucas’ remarks about the final rule, the agency has not made any promises that it will refrain from enforcing it.
Further, Ketchmark found the case ripe for review because a delay in considering the case would require the foundation to choose between “following its religious beliefs and risking enforcement or complying.”
Finally, she found the foundation demonstrated a threat of irreparable harm to its right of free exercise of religion because it is likely to succeed on the merits of an RFRA claim.
Since the change in administrations, EEOC has reversed course on a number of recent rules and court proceedings, notably dropping its pursuit of discrimination cases involving gender identity claims. Lucas also announced her intention to have the agency revisit the anti-harassment guidance EEOC issued in April 2024 in order to remove gender identity-based protections.
This case demonstrates that until EEOC has a quorum and can properly rescind previous agency actions, it must continue to contend with legal fallout pertaining to guidance with which agency leadership does not agree.
