ARTICLE
23 April 2025

EEOC Is Permanently Enjoined From Enforcing Portions Of PWFA Final Regulations And EEOC's Title VII Guidance On Harassment In The Workplace Against Catholic Employer Organization

JL
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Contributor

Focused on employment and labor law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.’s 1,000+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients’ goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee.
On April 15, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota issued its decision granting partial summary judgment to the Catholic Benefits Association...
United States Employment and HR

On April 15, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota issued its decision granting partial summary judgment to the Catholic Benefits Association, on behalf of its members and the Bismarck Diocese (collectively the CBA). The court found that the portions of the PWFA Final Regulations that require employers to reasonably accommodate limitations arising out of infertility, abortions, and in vitro fertilization violate the CBA's rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court also found that the EEOC's Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace violates the CBA's rights under the RFRA to the extent the EEOC Guidance forces the CBA to "speak or communicate in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith; refrain from speaking or communicating against the same when such is contrary to the Catholic faith, use pronouns inconsistent with a person's biological sex; or allow persons to use private spaces reserved for the opposite sex."

Because the court granted partial summary judgment and permanently enjoined the EEOC's enforcement of the PWFA and Guidance On Harassment in the Workplace in this manner, the court declined to address the CBA's other arguments including that the PWFA final regulations violate the Administrative Procedures Act.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

This ruling, and the court's injunction, is limited to the CBA and its members. Moreover, the applicability of the court's reasoning, other than the court's discussion about whether the CBA had legal standing to bring the case, is limited to RFRA challenges to the PWFA regulations and EEOC Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. While the EEOC could appeal the decision, it is entirely possible the agency will not do so since the EEOC has indicated its intent to revisit the breadth of the PWFA final regulations once the EEOC regains a quorum of commissioners and the Trump Administration has directed the EEOC to rescind the Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.

More than half-a-dozen lawsuits have been filed by private employers and a number of states challenging the EEOC's authority to enact portions of the PWFA Final Regulations. We are continuing to monitor these developments. Please reach out to your Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about this decision or the other pending cases challenging the PWFA final regulations or the EEOC's Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More