A federal judge has permitted over 8,000 Catholic employers across the country to disregard government regulations that safeguard workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments.
U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor, based in Bismarck, North Dakota, issued a preliminary injunction on Monday, stating that the Catholic Benefits Association and the Diocese of Bismarck are likely to demonstrate that an April rule by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) violates their religious freedom. This rule aims to enforce the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
The judge also prohibited the EEOC from compelling the diocese and the association to comply with harassment regulations that would require them to support abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition, which conflict with Catholic beliefs. The ruling specifically affects transgender employees, restricting their ability to express aspects of their gender identities.
Traynor remarked, “It is a precarious time for people of religious faith in America,” noting the increasing administrative actions against the fundamental right to practice religion freely.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which received bipartisan support in December 2022, was seen as a triumph for low-wage women often denied accommodations for medical needs. However, controversy arose when the EEOC adopted a broad interpretation of conditions requiring accommodations for pregnancy and childbirth, including for abortion and fertility treatments. Although the rule includes a religious exemption, it requires individual assessments for each case.
Traynor, appointed by former President Trump in 2020, criticized the rule for forcing employers to choose between their beliefs and compliance, stating it would cause “irreparable” harm.
Martin Nussbaum, the association’s lead attorney, hailed the ruling as a victory for Catholic employers’ religious conscience. The Department of Justice did not comment on the case.
Government attorneys argued against the injunction, labeling the plaintiffs’ claims as “highly speculative” and asserting they lacked legal standing. The judge dismissed these claims, emphasizing that it shouldn’t take litigation for the agency to respect Americans’ constitutional rights.
The issue of in vitro fertilization (IVF) has also become politically charged, particularly after the Alabama Supreme Court equated frozen embryos with children, prompting major IVF providers to halt operations until legal protections were enacted. Recently, Trump announced plans to make IVF free if re-elected, although he did not outline the funding or execution of this proposal. Additionally, Republicans blocked efforts to establish a nationwide right to IVF, drawing criticism from Vice President Kamala Harris.
Inimai Chettiar, president of the legal advocacy group A Better Balance, described the case as part of a broader attack on women’s rights and reproductive freedom, clarifying that neither the act nor the EEOC regulations require employers to finance abortions or IVF; they simply mandate allowing time off for these procedures.
The Diocese of Bismarck and the Catholic Benefits Association initiated the lawsuit in July. The association serves over 1,380 employers, including 85 dioceses and archdioceses, and covers approximately 162,000 employees.
Traynor has strong ties to Catholic and conservative organizations, previously serving on the board of the North Dakota Catholic Conference. His recent decisions have blocked the government from enforcing regulations requiring Christian employers to provide coverage for gender-transition services.
This ruling follows a similar decision in July by a Louisiana federal judge, which granted a preliminary injunction in lawsuits filed by Louisiana and Mississippi attorneys general, as well as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. However, the North Dakota case uniquely challenges protections for fertility treatments in addition to abortion.
Leila Abolfazli, from the National Women’s Law Center, noted that denying time off for fertility care could significantly affect a worker’s chances of becoming pregnant. Although this ruling currently applies only to Catholic groups, it is part of a larger trend that threatens to undermine legal protections incrementally.
Concerns about a “broader chilling effect” on pregnant workers’ rights under the act were voiced by Sharita Gruberg, while Gillian Thomas from the ACLU criticized the ruling as a troubling development in using religion to undermine civil rights.
