Mint Kolkata

PATRICIA LOPEZ

-

Republican-led states keep finding ways to challenge the authority of the federal government on anything that doesn’t line up with their conservati­ve worldview. This time, the target is a new law that requires employers to provide reasonable accommodat­ions to pregnant employees. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was a decade in the making, with the modest goal of ensuring that pregnant employees are given reasonable accommodat­ions to deal with things such as morning sickness, doctor-prescribed bed-rest, or weight-carrying limits for jobs with physical requiremen­ts. In creating the rules that define the law, the Equal Employment Opportunit­y Commission decided, quite logically, that abortion qualifies as such a condition. In practice, that means an employer would be required to allow an employee time off to obtain an abortion.

That set off a firestorm among Republican attorneys general in 17 states, who filed a lawsuit to block the rule, incensed at the idea that an employer would have to accommodat­e leave for a procedure they might personally oppose. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Arkansas, claims that the EEOC rule, which takes effect in mid-June, is illegal and goes beyond the intended scope of the 2022 law—which passed with broad bipartisan support.

Never mind that these same attorneys general preside over some of the most draconian and restrictiv­e abortion laws in the country, forcing women to travel out of state for needed reproducti­ve care. Never mind that an employer has no business passing judgement on how an employee decides to deal with a medical issue. There are all kinds of reasons a woman might choose to, or even need to, terminate a pregnancy—not even one of which should she have to disclose to her boss.

A conservati­ve majority on the US Supreme Court already gave states the ability to pass abortion curbs unseen in Arizona since the late 1800s. But that’s not enough for these AGs. They want to block any employer in any state from having to comply with these basic protection­s, even states that have chosen to protect reproducti­ve rights. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, who together with Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is leading the coalition that filed the suit, said in a statement that the rule is “yet another attempt by the Biden administra­tion to force through administra­tive fiat what it cannot get passed through Congress. Under this radical interpreta­tion of the PWFA, business owners will face federal lawsuits if they don’t accommodat­e employees’ abortions, even if those abortions are illegal under state law,” Griffin said. That’s an artful characteri­zation, since one state’s laws on abortion should have little bearing on someone who seeks an abortion in a state where the procedure is legal. And yes, under the new law, an employer might indeed face a lawsuit if a reasonable accommodat­ion is denied. That’s precisely the point, and if anything, demonstrat­es the need for such workplace protection­s.

If employers can deny accommodat­ion because they oppose abortion, what else might they deny based on personal beliefs? Time off to recover from a miscarriag­e? Fertility treatments that might result in extra embryos? Exactly how much control must an employer have over workers?

Not too long ago, women in America could be fired just for getting pregnant. That’s how the 1978 federal Pregnancy Discrimina­tion Act came into being. That law, however, left loopholes for employers to discrimina­te against pregnant employees.

Now women must contend with being penalized at work because they choose not to be pregnant. To be clear, the EEOC isn’t requiring employers to provide paid time off—just time off. The agency is protecting the right of pregnant workers to seek their own care, regardless of their bosses’ political or religious beliefs. And the need is obvious. According to the EEOC, about a third of the more than 2,000 pregnancy discrimina­tion complaints filed in 2023 stemmed from an employer declining to provide reasonable accommodat­ions.

Federal laws and rules exist partly to ensure that Americans have certain base freedoms no matter what state they live in. A war was fought over that principle. These Republican-led states are loath to recognize federal authority on any issue that runs afoul of their conservati­ve crusade. Their seem bent on imposing their will on states even beyond their borders. Apart from Arkansas and Tennessee, attorneys general in the coalition include those from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia. They are trying to impose their social mores on the rest of us under the guise of [federalism] and protecting employers.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India