The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 15 issued a significant ruling that reinstates the enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) against the State of Texas effective immediately. This decision reverses an earlier district court ruling that had blocked the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from enforcing the PWFA, based on an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s quorum requirements.
Background of the Case
In February 2024, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled that the PWFA could not be enforced against the State of Texas since Congress passed the omnibus spending package, which included the PWFA, using a proxy voting rule that violated the U.S. Constitution’s quorum clause. Judge Hendrix’s decision was based on the belief that a representative’s physical presence was necessary for a quorum in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Judge Hendrix’s order covered more than 900 Texas state agencies and divisions, including entities such as the Department of Public Safety, Health and Human Services Commission, Department of Agriculture, Texas Workforce Commission and Texas Education Agency. The order also included universities, such as the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, University of Houston, Texas Tech University and the University of North Texas.
Fifth Circuit Clarifies Quorum Clause, Supports Proxy Voting
But, the Fifth Circuit, in a split decision, found that the U.S. Constitution does not require physical presence for a quorum, thereby allowing the use of proxy voting. As U.S. Circuit Judge James E. Graves stated, “After reading the text, analyzing binding and persuasive authority, and reviewing our Nation’s history and tradition, we conclude that the Quorum Clause does not require physical presence.” This interpretation aligns with the majority opinion, which emphasized that the House’s proxy-voting rule is consistent with constitutional text, history, and tradition. The Court found that the House’s proxy-voting rule did not violate anyone’s fundamental rights and noted that there is a reasonable relationship between the rule and the result it seeks —majoritarian rule. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court and vacated the District Court’s permanent injunction.
Implications for Employers
The Fifth Circuit’s decision has several implications for employers in Texas:
- Reinstatement of PWFA Enforcement: The Court’s ruling allows the EEOC to enforce the PWFA against the State of Texas, its agencies, and divisions. Previously, only these entities were exempt due to Judge Hendrix's injunction, while private and other governmental employers always had to comply.
- Compliance Requirements for State Agencies: Texas state agencies and divisions must now align their policies with the PWFA requirements, which include accommodating employees’ known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
- Potential for Increased Litigation: With enforcement back in place, there might be more lawsuits related to PWFA claims. The State of Texas, its agencies, and divisions should be diligent in documenting accommodations and engaging in an interactive process with employees to address their needs.
- Continued Compliance for Others: Private and other governmental employers in Texas were never exempt from the PWFA and must continue to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions, unless doing so would cause undue hardship.
Conclusion
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling restores the EEOC’s ability to enforce the PWFA against the state of Texas, underscoring the importance of compliance for all employers in Texas. While private and other governmental employers were always required to adhere to the PWFA, state agencies must now ensure they are fully compliant. Employers are encouraged to review and update their policies to mitigate legal risks and ensure the fair treatment of pregnant employees.
[View source.]
