The New York Times reported that the Trump administration is preparing to consider narrowing workplace accommodations related to pregnancy and reproductive health. Seven people familiar with the discussions told the newspaper that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may revise regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Congress passed the law in 2022 to help pregnant employees remain at work by requiring reasonable accommodations such as bathroom and water breaks, relief from heavy lifting and time away for prenatal appointments.
The debate concerns how broadly the EEOC’s current rules interpret the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Supporters of a narrower approach argue that the regulations extended protections to abortion, fertility treatment and other reproductive-health conditions that do not involve an employee being pregnant, going beyond what Congress intended. Supporters of the current rule say pregnancy-related medical needs do not end with an ongoing pregnancy and that broad coverage helps prevent workers from losing employment because of reproductive-health conditions.
The report said the administration is considering removing explicit protections for some conditions affecting people who are not pregnant and examining broader religious exemptions for employers. If the rules are narrowed, employees undergoing fertility treatment could lose some clearly stated accommodation protections, including scheduling changes or time off for treatment. Accommodations related to abortion could also be affected. The newspaper stressed that the plans were still under discussion and had not been finalized.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees whose limitations relate to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, unless doing so would create an undue hardship. Existing rules describe accommodations that can include additional breaks, access to water, schedule adjustments, temporary relief from physically demanding duties and time off for prenatal care. The dispute is not simply whether basic pregnancy protections will remain. It concerns the boundaries of “related medical conditions” and the circumstances in which employers may claim exemptions, including on religious grounds.
The New York Times reported that the EEOC could propose revisions as soon as this month. A proposal would not itself change the current rule; the agency would need to proceed through the applicable administrative process, including an opportunity for public comment, before a final rule could take effect. Until then, employers and workers remain subject to the existing law and regulations. Key questions will include how the proposal defines fertility treatment, abortion and other reproductive-health conditions, and how the commission responds to public comments.