News|Articles|November 5, 2026

EEOC Reportedly Plans to Narrow Pregnancy Accommodation Rules

The EEOC is reportedly preparing to narrow Pregnant Workers Fairness Act rules; no revised rule has been published as of yet.

Explicit federal workplace accommodation protections for conditions unrelated to current pregnancy could be cut under revisions the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is reportedly preparing, according to The New York Times.¹ Citing 7 people with knowledge of the discussions, the Times reported on November 2 that the administration is preparing to scale back accommodations and that the EEOC plans to publish a proposal as soon as November. The EEOC declined to comment on potential regulatory changes,¹ and no revised rule has been published.²

What the Reported Plan Would Change

The people familiar with the plans said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, JD, is not expected to eliminate the requirements that most directly protect women during pregnancy.¹ Some said the agency could cut the list of related medical conditions, leaving employers and courts to decide which qualify, and that wider religious exemptions are under consideration that would let employers refuse accommodations for conditions deemed incompatible with their beliefs. The 2024 rule remains in effect, minus its vacated elective abortion provisions, until a revised rule is final.²

The current rule lists dozens of conditions and procedures, including fertility treatments, endometriosis, and menstruation, along with past and intended pregnancy and use of contraception.¹The EEOC's regulatory agenda lists a proposed rule revising how the agency interprets the phrase "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." It projects a notice of proposed rulemaking in November 2026 and a comment period ending in January 2027.³

Why the Rule Is Being Revisited

Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) with bipartisan support in 2022, and it took effect June 27, 2023.^1,2 Conservatives, including some who supported the law, have said the 2024 rule reached beyond pregnancy to cover matters including abortion and fertility treatment, the Times reported.¹ Lucas voted against the 2024 final rule, arguing it could extend accommodation requirements to conditions ranging from infertility to menstruation to menopause.²

On May 21, 2025, a federal judge in the Western District of Louisiana vacated the rule's provisions requiring accommodation for elective abortion, but the ruling did not affect accommodations for abortions needed to treat a pregnancy-related medical condition.^2,4An EEOC spokesperson declined to discuss potential rulemaking but cited more than 40 public enforcement actions involving pregnancy-related discrimination, including 24 lawsuits, since the start of the second Trump administration.⁵

Reaction From Lawmakers and Officials

Fifteen Democratic senators urged Lucas in May 2026 to preserve protections for employees undergoing fertility treatment, writing that removing them could lead employers to unlawfully deny accommodation requests.⁶ Representative Jerry Nadler (D, New York), one of the law's authors, said broad protections were intended, while Senator Bill Cassidy, MD, (R, Louisiana), its principal Republican author, wrote that the EEOC had ignored the statute by including abortion.¹ Jocelyn Samuels, a former EEOC vice chair who helped write the rule, said she feared that curtailed regulations would leave employees, especially in low-wage hourly roles, at risk of losing their jobs or experiencing health crises. The Times also cited a University of Wisconsin study finding the law contributed to a nearly 10% decline in miscarriages.

Implications for Employers and Benefit Design

Christine Bestor Townsend, an attorney at the labor and employment law firm Ogletree Deakins, wrote in the National Law Review that employers should expect a narrower regulatory definition of what the PWFA covers.² She predicted the proposal would remove infertility, menstruation, birth control, and past pregnancy and tie coverage to current pregnancy or childbirth, based on Lucas’s stated views, though the agency’s agenda entry does not specify which conditions would change.^2,3 Townsend cautioned that a narrower definition does not signal less enforcement of core pregnancy accommodations.²

Separately, a rule proposed in May by the Departments of Labor, HHS, and the Treasury would let employers offer fertility benefits as an excepted benefit, in the same category as dental and vision coverage, with a proposed $120,000 lifetime cap per participant.^7,8 Comments on the proposal closed July 13, 2026.⁸

References