On August 15, 2025, in State of Texas v. Bondi, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal overturned a decision from a Texas district court that previously found the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) to be unconstitutionally enacted.
As background, the PWFA is a federal law enacted in 2022 that aims to protect pregnant workers or workers who have conditions tied to pregnancy and childbirth by requiring employers with 15 or more employees to offer reasonable workplace accommodations to such employees. The law also prohibits discrimination or retaliation against these employees. The law covers not only pregnancy but also related medical conditions, such as morning sickness, gestational diabetes, and postpartum depression.
The PWFA became law in December 2022 after passing in both the House and the Senate as an amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act (a $1.7 trillion bill). The bill was passed using a pandemic-era rule that allowed lawmakers to vote remotely by proxy.
The PWFA went into effect on June 27, 2023.
In February 2023 (before the law took effect), the State of Texas filed a lawsuit against the federal government, challenging the federal government’s omnibus spending package and specifically targeting two provisions of the bill: enactment of the PWFA and funding for unauthorized immigrant social services. The State of Texas focused its lawsuit on the U.S. Constitution’s quorum clause, which requires a majority of members of the House or Senate to be present in order to constitute the necessary quorum to pass legislation.
In February 2024, a federal judge in Texas agreed with the State of Texas and blocked the EEOC from enforcing the PWFA against the State of Texas. Specifically, the judge ruled that the law could not be enforced against the State because the House did not have a proper quorum when it passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act in 2022. The judge ruled that the remote voting by proxy violated the Constitution’s quorum clause.
With this 2024 ruling, the judge issued a permanent injunction, barring the federal government from filing suits under the PWFA against the State of Texas. The injunction would also block the EEOC from accepting state employees’ charges alleging violations of the PWFA, investigating those charges, issuing right-to-sue letters or suing on behalf of employees. The injunction however would not block state employees in Texas from filing suits under the PWFA and did not impact private employers.
This decision was appealed to the Firth Circuit, which held that House lawmakers did not need to vote in person to have a quorum under the Constitution, and that the district court judge adopted an improper interpretation of the quorum clause in ruling that the bill required the physical presence of a majority of House members when it was passed. The Fifth Circuit explained that the constitutional text, history, and tradition indicate that the quorum clause does not contain a physical-presence requirement.
With this decision, the EEOC’s ability to enforce the PWFA against the State of Texas is restored and the decision makes clear that covered employers, both public and private, must comply with the PWFA. Thus, employers must make sure their accommodation policies and related policies address pregnancy-related needs and also take into account medical conditions related to pregnancy.
Those seeking a more in-depth understanding of the PWFA and pregnancy discrimination are invited to read Chapter 5 of the Employment Discrimination and EEO Practice Manual for California Employers by Attorney Richard J. Simmons of Sheppard Mullin. The Manual is available from Castle Publications.
To read more articles like this one, subscribe to the ALERT Newsletter today!
About The Author
Rachel Patta Howard is an associate in Sheppard Mullin’s Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm’s Century City office. Ms. Howard represents employers in a variety of industries including financial services, banking, retail, healthcare, manufacturing, and entertainment. She has successfully litigated and favorably resolved cases involving allegations of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, failure to accommodate, wrongful termination, trade secret misappropriation, and defamation, as well as wage and hour cases, including representative and class actions. Additionally, Rachel advises and counsels clients on day-to-day employment issues including internal investigations, discipline and terminations, leaves of absence, the interactive process, reasonable accommodations, personnel policies, and other wage and hour compliance issues.
She has written a number of articles for the Sheppard Mullin Labor and Employment Blog and is a contributing author of the ALERT Newsletter.
Ms. Howard received her law degree, as well as her undergraduate degree, from the University of California, Los Angeles.