LUBBOCK – An electrical equipment company, represented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, has brought suit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission contending that Congress violated the Quorum Clause in allowing its members to vote by proxy, and not in person, on a spending bill which authorized the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – one tenet of which is that employers must accommodate employees seeking an elective abortion.
Brandon & Clark, Inc. of Lubbock filed suit July 22 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the EEOC, its members Charlotte A. Burrows, Jocelyn Samuels, Keith E. Sonderling, Andrea R. Lucas, Kalpana Kotagal, its general counsel Karla Gilbride and the United States of America.
“This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of a statute that was enacted in violation of the Quorum Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the legality of subsequent regulations implementing certain provisions of that statute," the complaint states. "When the House of Representatives voted to pass the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, only 201 members were present in the Hall of the House. But the Constitution excludes absent members from counting toward a quorum. Thus the House of Representatives did not have the power to vote on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, and it is therefore not a law,” the suit says.
“Division II of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 contained the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires employers to provide accommodations similar to those offered under the Americans with Disabilities Act to pregnant women employees.”
The suit continues that “because the House of Representatives purported to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, it too is not a law.”
“The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act authorized the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to issue regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This rule, among other things, requires employers to provide accommodations to an employee seeking an elective abortion. Because the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act contained EEOC’s sole rulemaking authority for this regulation, the Commission had no authority to conduct the rulemaking and rule is therefore void,” the suit states.
Plaintiff counsel offered statements on the motivations behind bringing the case.
“We are continuing to see illegal regulations, like these, that are based on a law that was passed in violation of the Constitution. When neither Congress nor executive agencies take their duties under the Constitution seriously, courts must step in,” TPPF senior attorney Matt Miller said.
“Congress was on notice for two and a half years that its proxy voting rule was constitutionally suspect. Yet in December 2022, when the rest of the world had returned to normal, Congress was still allowing its members to phone it in. This case advances a simple principle: the Constitution requires members of Congress to show up to do their job,” TPPF attorney Eric Heigis added.
For counts of declaratory and injunctive relief under the Quorum Clause, plus rulemaking in excess of statutory authority, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was adopted in violation of the Constitution and is therefore unlawful; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act; set aside implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, because it is in excess of statutory authority; and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Matthew R. Miller, Chance Dean Weldon, Eric Williams Heigis and Robert Earl Henneke of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, in Austin.
The defendants have not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas case 5:24-cv-00173
From the Southeast Texas Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com