“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans began to ’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Judge David Joseph, nominated by Donald Trump to the federal district court for the Western District of Louisiana, struck down an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rule mandating that employers accommodate employee healthcare related to abortions. The May 2025 decision, which applies nationwide, was in State of Louisiana v EEOC.
What has happened in this case?
In 2022, Congress enacted the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) which, modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act, requires all employers with 15 or more workers to make “reasonable accommodations” to “known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” of employees, unless the company can demonstrate that this would “impose an undue hardship.” As directed by the law, the EEOC undertook rulemaking and promulgated clarifying rules in 2024. The rules stated that “related medical conditions” include “termination of pregnancy, including via miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion.”
The states of Louisiana and Mississippi filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the EEOC rules were invalid because they included abortion. Several Catholic groups also filed suit. All the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment before Joseph.
How did Joseph rule and why is the result harmful?
Joseph granted summary judgment against the EEOC. He ruled that the agency had no authority to include abortion in its rules and that doing so violated Congress’ intent, which he claimed was “only to accommodate and protect female employees during pregnancy.” He asserted that it was significant that the law passed months after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v Wade in the Dobbs case, and suggested that if Congress had wanted to include an abortion accommodation provision in the law, “it surely would have done so.”
Reproductive choice supporters have strongly criticized the ruling. As the president of A Better Balance pointed out, previously the courts and the EEOC had “consistently interpreted pregnancy-related needs to include abortion-related needs.” The court’s “sudden decision to rewrite” the EEOC rules, she continued, “upends workers’ and employers’ understanding” of them and “is part of a broader attack on women’s rights and reproductive freedom.”
Whether there will be an appeal of Joseph’s holding remains uncertain. For now at least, the ruling clearly harms both. In addition, the case illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.