AUGUST 2025 | 31 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL RECENT LITIGATION AND CHALLENGES TO THE PWFA The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed several suits under the PWFA. Among these are the first settlements, two of which involved pregnant workers obtaining compensatory damages and backpay awards totaling $100,000 (for termination after the employer failed to accommodate recovery time following a stillbirth) and $50,000 (for termination following a request to attend monthly pregnancy appointments).38 The settlements also included mandates regarding workplace policy changes, appointing EEO coordinators and training for employees.39 One of the initial lawsuits filed by the EEOC is currently pending in the Northern District of Oklahoma. In EEOC v. Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc., a pregnant medical assistant allegedly could not “sit, take breaks, or work part-time as her physician said was needed to protect her health and safety during the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy” and was forced to take unpaid leave.40 It further alleges that she refused to return when her employer would not guarantee she would receive breaks to express breast milk,41 which also premises a violation under the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act.42 Most challenges to the PWFA attack the EEOC’s final rule, which requires employers to grant leave to employees requesting leave for elective abortions. Texas successfully challenged the EEOC’s ability to pursue claims against the state, as it is an immune state actor that would face substantial costs in defending these lawsuits. Federal courts in Louisiana and North Dakota have granted preliminary injunctions enjoining enforcement of these regulations due to concerns that they conflict with existing state laws on abortion, infringing upon state sovereignty, free speech and religious liberty.43 Seventeen states have mounted a challenge against this final rule on behalf of state employers in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, contending that the EEOC exceeded its authority under the PWFA. 44 IMPORTANT TAKEAWAYS Regardless of the legal battles surrounding the PWFA, it remains imperative for employees to communicate with their employers about the needs that arise from pregnancy and the birth of a child and how employer policies may create challenges (many of which can be unintended). Employers must engage in the interactive process with pregnant employees to determine reasonable accommodations. Employers should review and revise existing accommodation processes where necessary, establish processes to follow when employees request accommodation due to pregnancy-related limitations, maintain accurate documentation regarding these requests and train their staff accordingly. Working together, employers and employees can avoid costly, time-consuming lawsuits and ensure that women can pursue economic prosperity while caring for their health and the health of their growing families. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Eric Di Giacomo currently serves as the acting chief of the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights Enforcement, where he focuses his practice on education and enforcement of civil rights laws among employers, housing providers and public accommodations. He received his J.D. from the TU College of Law. Lacey Pogue is the incoming assistant attorney general in the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights Enforcement. She received her J.D. from the TU College of Law, where she participated in the Reproductive Justice Practicum and presented before the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown Law. ENDNOTES 1. 42 U.S.C. §2000gg. 2. Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 423 (1908). 3. Id. at 421. 4. See Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971); see also Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972). 5. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 642 (1974). 6. Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, 494-97 (1974). 7. Gilbert v. Gen. Elec. Co., 429 U.S. 125 (1976). 8. Id. at 136, 152. 9. Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076. 10. Id. 11. United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991). 12. Id. at 191-2. 13. Id. at 211. 14. Young v. United Parcel Serv., 575 U.S. 206, 211 (2015). 15. Id. at 212. 16. Id. at 229. 17. Dina Bakst, Elizabeth Gedmark and Sarah Brafman, “Long Overdue – It Is Time for the Federal Workers Fairness Act,” A Better Balance (2019), available at http://bit.ly/3ZVffz7. 18. Ben Gitis, Emerson Sprick and Adrienne Schweer, “BPC – Morning Consult: 1 in 5 Moms Experience Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace,” Bipartisan Policy Center (2022), available at http://bit.ly/4no5kwd; Katherine Schaeffer and Carolina Aragão, “Key facts about Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==