Workforce Bulletin

On April 19, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or the “Commission”) published its final rule (“Final Rule”) and interpretive guidance to implement the  Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The Final Rule will take effect on June 18, 2024.

Although the PWFA borrows language and concepts that employers are already familiar with from existing federal protections, the Commission’s proposed rule to implement the PWFA (“Proposed Rule”), issued in August 2023, emphasized that the PWFA’s protections are broader and intended to cover ...

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently proposed regulations (the “Proposed Rule”) to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for additional conditions relating to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Issued on August 11, 2023, the Proposed Rule is currently open for public comment, and has, as of this writing, already received more  than 40,440 public submissions responding to the EEOC’s proposal. Many remarks address the fact that the EEOC included ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re recapping the last year of the Dobbs decision:

June 24, 2023, marks exactly one year since the widely controversial Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Susan Gross Sholinsky, Delia A. Deschaine, and Lucas Peterhans examine the impact this far-reaching SCOTUS decision has had on employee benefit plans and workplace policies, discrimination, and health care regulatory compliance.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Slattery v. Hochul, reversing the dismissal of a First Amendment challenge to New York Labor Law §203-e (also referred to as the “Boss Bill”). The Boss Bill prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions against employees based upon their reproductive health decisions, including “a decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service,” and also forbids employers from “accessing an employee’s personal information regarding the employee’s . . . reproductive health decision making.” The term “reproductive health decision making” necessarily would include an employee’s decision to have an abortion or use contraception. The Boss Bill, unlike Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, does not contain an exemption for religiously affiliated organizations.

On May 17, 2023, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed SB 147 into law, amending the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) to expand its protections from workplace discrimination to those who have abortions.  The law is expected take effect on March 31, 2024, ninety-one days after final adjournment of the Michigan Legislature’s 2023 Regular Session and will apply to any Michigan employer with one or more employees. This is the second time this year that the Michigan Legislature has amended ELCRA, joining SB 4 in early March 2023, which amended ELCRA to add protections for individuals based on their sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression.

In the wake of the landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, we have been closely monitoring legal developments across the country. In addition to well publicized “trigger laws” that were effectuated as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order, states have taken up a variety of legislative actions in response to the ruling, which placed authority for the regulation of abortion with the states.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we examine the enforcement risks employers could face in the complex, state-by-state landscape of abortion law after Roe v. Wade.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state legislatures across the country have accelerated their discussion of new laws either restricting or further protecting access to abortions.  A state senate bill in South Carolina, S. 1373 currently pending in the Senate Committee on Medical Affairs, would not only ban almost all abortions in that state, but would also afford novel whistleblower protections. Specifically, S. 1373 imposes criminal penalties, punishable by imprisonment for ten years, for persons who “take any action to impede a whistleblower from communicating about a violation of this article with the Attorney General, a solicitor, or any other person authorized to bring an action in violation of this article.”

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we look at two U.S. Supreme Court decisions and legislation in California with major implications for employers and health care providers.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we look at the significance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the impact that the overturning of Roe v. Wade will have on employers.

The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has held that there is no constitutional right to abortion, overruling Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Employment issues to consider while awaiting decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization

The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) will imminently release its decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and if the final ruling is consistent with the recently-leaked draft opinion (overturning Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey), employers may soon need to contend with a variety of novel employment and benefits related issues. Some employers have already begun to consider and plan for a post-Roe workplace. Those who have not would be wise to do so now, to best ensure a well-coordinated and thoughtful approach.

For example, some employers have publicly announced plans to provide expanded healthcare benefits, travel, lodging and other benefits to employees who may seek abortion-related services in states where those medical services will be prohibited or limited.  These benefits raise complex legal issues applicable to employers’ group health plans and fringe benefit plans, including conflicts between federal and state law, federal ERISA preemption and potential employer civil and/or criminal liability for providing these benefits.