Natasha Jackson was four months pregnant when she told her boss she was pregnant. It was 2008, and Jackson was working as a customer service representative at a furniture rental store in Charleston, South Carolina—and was the only female employee there.
“I kept my pregnancy a secret for as long as I could because I was afraid of what might happen,” she said.
When her doctor recommended she lift no more than 25 pounds, her employer wouldn’t allow her to take a momentary job that didn’t require her to lift furniture, even though such positions were available, she said. She had to take a leave of absence and then lost her job. Her marriage fell apart, and she spent time in a shelter after giving birth.
“This misfortune haunted me for years and took away the joy of pregnancy,” Jackson said. “They made me feel guilty and ashamed about having a baby.”
Jackson, now 41, a mother of four and owner of her own cleaning company, has worked with advocacy groups for years to fight for better laws protecting pregnant workers. Last year, she was invited to speak at a White House event celebrating the passage of the Fairness for Pregnant Workers Acta fresh anti-discrimination law in the workplace, which she had campaigned for.
But now this law, which was passed with broad bipartisan support, has become a thorn in the side of the bitter battle over abortion rights between Republican-led states and the federal government.
The law closes gaps in state and federal protections by requiring employers with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or have related medical conditions – unless the employer can prove that doing so would cause “undue hardship” to the company.
The relief may include allowing an employee to take additional bathroom breaks, carry a water bottle, or sit instead of stand while working. After years of lobbying by nonprofits and business groups, the federal law was passed in December 2022. It came into force Last June.
In its legislative process, the Biden administration included abortion as a “related medical condition” covered by the law. This means that workers seeking an abortion can ask their employer for accommodations, such as time off work for an appointment or recovery.
This year, 19 Republican attorneys general – including one from Jackson’s home state of South Carolina – sued the government over that interpretation.
I find it utterly ridiculous that some employers want to have such complete control over their employees that they feel they have the right to jeopardise their job security because of pregnancy or anything related to it.
– Natasha Jackson, mother of four who once lost her job after asking for support during pregnancy
The attorneys general argue that the Biden administration is forcing abortion relief even in states where abortion is illegal.
“Under this radical interpretation of the PWFA, employers face federal charges if they do not allow employees to have abortions, even if those abortions are illegal under state law,” Arkansas Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a opinion Last month, the lawsuit filed by Arkansas and 16 other Republican-led states was announced.
But some advocates say the lawsuit jeopardizes the protections of all pregnant workers covered by the fresh law – not just the diminutive segment of the population that relies on abortion.
“These states are shooting themselves in the foot,” says Elizabeth Gedmark, an attorney and vice president of A Better Balance, a national nonprofit advocacy group that provides legal advice and has long advocated for a national fairness law for pregnant workers.
“These attacks have very real consequences for people’s lives, economic security and health,” she said.
Jackson fears the lawsuit could result in fewer workers receiving the care they need for their health.
“[Workers] “They should have the right to appropriate medical care during pregnancy, after childbirth, after a miscarriage or an abortion,” she said. “It seems completely ridiculous to me that some employers want to have so much control over their employees that they feel they have the right to jeopardize their job security because of a pregnancy or anything related to it.”
Into the fight
After Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency called the EEOC, had to draft a set of rules clarifying what employers can and cannot do under the law.
Last summer, the EEOC asked the public for comments on its proposed rules for how the fresh law would work. More than 100,000 comments were submitted over a period of two months.
The flood of comments resulted from opinions about whether the EEOC should include abortion in its definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” covered by the fresh law.
The extensive majority of comments were nearly identical form comments, according to the EEOC. About 54,000 of the comments urged the EEOC to exclude abortion, while about 40,000 supported its inclusion.
By a vote of 3-2, the EEOC ultimately adopted fresh rules that add abortion care to the definition of conditions covered by the law. The rules are set to take effect on June 18.
But in April, a week after the EEOC announced final rulesThe coalition of Republican attorneys general from 17 states argued in their lawsuit that the “wrong interpretationof the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act creates an “abortion accommodation requirement.”
“When the bill was passed by Congress, it was explicitly clear that it did not address abortion at all, and the text of the bill does not address abortion,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who is leading the lawsuit along with Arkansas’ Griffin.
Skrmetti and the other Republican attorneys general refer to comments Statements made by lawmakers during debate on the measure seem to indicate that it was not Congress’s intention to impose abortion-related requirements in states where abortion would be illegal.
Democratic U.S. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who sponsored the pregnant workers bill, said during the debate that the EEOC “cannot issue a rule requiring abortion leave, nor does the law permit the EEOC to require employers to provide abortions in violation of state law.”
The 15 other states joining the lawsuit are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia.
Other states have joined the fight. In mid-May, the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, both Republicans, filed their own lawsuit to challenge the same provision.
And in February, a federal judge in Texas barred the EEOC from accepting complaints from Texas state employees under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It was a victory for Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, who sued the Biden administration last year.
Protective measures at risk
Skrmetti, the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, believes the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a good law.
“It was passed with a level of bipartisanship that is rarely seen,” he told Stateline, “and it undermines the efforts of Congress and the will of the people when agencies change laws without the authority of the people’s representatives.”
But Gedmark, of A Better Balance, said decades of legal precedent have supported abortion as a related medical condition for pregnant workers. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a federal law passed in 1978, prohibits sex discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions — a definition the EEOC has long interpreted to include abortion.
Supporters of the fresh Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and EEOC rules fear the lawsuits will create confusion among employers and employees. There is concern, Gedmark said, that a court could invalidate other regulations in addition to those that mention abortion.
Skrmetti does not believe the lawsuit, filed in 17 states, will affect legal protections for pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding workers.
“The optimal outcome would be to repeal the abortion-related parts of the rule that are not supported by the law,” he said. “But the law remains the law, regardless of what the [EEOC’s] rules are.”
While the states and federal governments clash in court, she says she is concentrating on informing as many women as possible about their fresh rights.
When she sees a pregnant employee in the store while shopping, she asks her how she is doing. She asks her if she knows her rights at work and how she can ask her employer for the necessary accommodations.
“Whether a mother chooses to have an abortion or not, she still needs medical care after the procedure, just as she would need medical care if she had a miscarriage or a normal birth,” Jackson said. “I believe employers should understand the difference between personal [ideology] and business.”
