Post-Dobbs Employment Considerations

Benesch
Contact

Benesch

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization the United States Supreme Court overturned years of precedent started by Roe v. Wade and conferred the right to regulate abortions to individual states. This marked change has obvious implications in social, political, and medical circles. But why does it matter for employers?

Patchwork Benefits

First, states are already enacting a variety of laws regulating access to abortions. This makes employer benefit compliance challenging, especially for multi-state employers. At least 15 states have enacted partial or total bans on abortions, and legislation continues to develop [Link to Holly’s legislation tracker]. Some of these states also impose liability on people or entities that assist people in obtaining an abortion. Employers will need to carefully consider which state laws apply to their employees, especially when operating in various jurisdictions, to reduce the risk of liability if they choose to offer any abortion services benefits. This may be even more challenging in the remote work environment and in today’s competitive labor market.

Discrimination Claims

Aside from just administrative challenges, the change in law opens questions for how employment discrimination claims might be handled, especially with respect to pregnancy and religious discrimination. For example, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits employment discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Federal courts have held the PDA prohibits adverse employment actions because of an employee’s decision to have or not have an abortion. Courts will likely have to decide how the PDA’s protections interact with a state’s anti-abortion laws. In addition, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion. Religious beliefs can often be connected to employee’s positions on abortion. Employers should be aware that employees may bring discrimination claims alleging that they suffered an adverse employment action based on their beliefs with respect to abortion. For example, in Carter v. Transportation Workers Union, a Texas jury recently awarded a former flight attendant $5 million in damages who was allegedly fired for sending anti-abortion messages to her union.

Protected Activity

Finally, speech in the workplace regarding abortion access may be considered “protected concerted activity” protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which prohibits retaliation against employees who discuss the terms and conditions of employment. Thus, employees discussing or advocating for an employer to provide benefits to employees for abortion-related healthcare services or advocating for an employer to take a certain public stance on the issue, may constitute protected activity under the NLRA. This includes employee activity on social media.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Benesch | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Benesch
Contact
more
less

Benesch on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.