Short introductionToday, we’re diving into a crucial topic in employment law with Sofia Khaira, a renowned specialist in diversity, equity, and inclusion. With her extensive expertise in helping businesses create equitable workplaces, Sofia offers invaluable insights into the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the recent legal developments surrounding it. In this conversation, we explore the significance of the PWFA for workers and employers, the implications of a pivotal court decision in Texas, and the ongoing debates over its interpretation. Join us as we unpack these complex issues and their impact on workplace rights.
Can you start by explaining what the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is and why it’s so important for workers across the U.S.?
Absolutely. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, or PWFA, is a federal law that went into effect in June 2023, designed to protect pregnant workers and those with related medical conditions. It mandates that employers with 15 or more employees provide reasonable accommodations for limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or associated conditions. This could mean anything from modified work schedules to providing seating or time off for medical appointments. Its importance lies in closing a gap in workplace protections, ensuring that individuals don’t have to choose between their health and their job during such a critical time.
What kind of impact does the PWFA have on employers with 15 or more employees?
For employers, the PWFA sets a clear standard to support their workforce. They’re required to engage in an interactive process with employees to identify and provide reasonable accommodations, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. This means employers need to be proactive—training managers, updating policies, and fostering a culture that prioritizes health and equity. It’s not just about compliance; it’s about building trust and retaining talent by showing they value their employees’ well-being.
Let’s talk about the recent 5th Circuit Court decision in Texas. Can you walk us through what happened in that case?
Certainly. In the case known as Texas v. Bondi, Texas challenged the constitutionality of the PWFA, arguing it was passed improperly because not enough members of Congress were physically present during the vote, with many voting by proxy. Initially, a district court in Texas sided with the state in 2024, blocking enforcement of the law there. However, on August 15, 2025, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that the law must be enforced in Texas after all, based on longstanding legal principles about how Congress operates.
What was the core of Texas’s argument against the PWFA in this legal battle?
Texas’s main contention was that the PWFA, which was part of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, was passed unconstitutionally. They claimed that the U.S. Constitution requires a majority of Congress to be physically present for a quorum to vote on legislation. Since more than half of the votes were cast by proxy during the passage of this bill, Texas argued that the process violated constitutional standards, rendering the law invalid.
How did the 5th Circuit justify overturning the district court’s ruling?
The 5th Circuit leaned on a legal precedent called the enrolled-bill rule, which dates back to a Supreme Court decision in 1892. This rule essentially says that once a bill is signed into law, the courts shouldn’t question the procedural details of how Congress passed it. They also clarified that the Constitution’s Quorum Clause doesn’t explicitly demand physical presence for voting, allowing proxy votes to count. This interpretation upheld the legitimacy of the PWFA’s passage and mandated its enforcement in Texas.
There’s been some discussion about the voting process in Congress for the PWFA. Can you explain what the enrolled-bill rule means in this context?
The enrolled-bill rule is a principle that protects the legislative process from judicial overreach. It means that once a bill is enrolled—meaning it’s been passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President—it’s considered valid, and courts generally won’t dig into the minutiae of how it was passed, like whether enough members were physically present. In the PWFA case, the 5th Circuit applied this rule to say that the law’s passage couldn’t be challenged on procedural grounds, reinforcing its standing.
How does the Constitution’s Quorum Clause play into this debate over the PWFA’s passage?
The Quorum Clause in the Constitution requires that a majority of each house of Congress be present to conduct business. Texas argued this meant physical presence, especially since many votes for the PWFA were by proxy. However, the 5th Circuit ruled that the clause doesn’t specify physical attendance as a requirement. They interpreted it to allow for proxy voting as a valid means of establishing a quorum, which was a key factor in upholding the law.
Shifting gears, the PWFA has faced significant pushback since the EEOC released its final rule in April 2024. Can you shed light on what’s been so controversial?
The controversy largely stems from the EEOC’s interpretation that abortion is included as a protected medical condition under the PWFA. This means employers might need to provide accommodations, like time off, for employees seeking abortions. This interpretation has sparked debate because it touches on deeply divisive social and political issues, leading to resistance from certain states and organizations who argue it goes beyond the law’s intended scope of protecting pregnancy and childbirth-related conditions.
How have states and organizations responded to the EEOC’s stance on abortion under the PWFA?
There’s been a strong backlash from several states and groups, particularly those with conservative leanings. Some have filed lawsuits to exempt themselves from this part of the EEOC’s rule, arguing it oversteps the PWFA’s purpose. For instance, religious organizations and certain state governments have pushed back, claiming that mandating accommodations for elective abortions conflicts with their beliefs or policies. This resistance has led to legal challenges that continue to shape how the law is applied.
What can you tell us about the internal dynamics at the EEOC regarding the PWFA’s interpretation?
There’s notable tension within the EEOC itself. The Acting Chair has publicly disagreed with the agency’s final rule that includes abortion as a protected condition under the PWFA, calling it an overreach. However, without a quorum—meaning not enough commissioners to make binding decisions—she’s unable to modify or rescind the rule. This internal conflict highlights broader ideological divides and has stalled any immediate changes to the agency’s stance, leaving the rule in place for now.
Looking ahead, what is your forecast for the future of the PWFA and its enforcement amidst these legal and political challenges?
I think the PWFA will continue to face scrutiny, especially around the EEOC’s interpretation of abortion as a protected condition. We’re likely to see more lawsuits from states and organizations seeking exemptions or clarifications, which could lead to a patchwork of enforcement across the country. Additionally, if the EEOC regains a quorum, there might be attempts to revisit the rule, depending on the political makeup of the commission. Ultimately, I believe the core protections of the PWFA will hold, but its broader implications will remain a battleground for years, reflecting deeper societal debates.
