Duckworth Joins Warren, Schumer in Pressing Head of Employment Protections Commission on Attacks on Workers Undergoing IVF

Duckworth Joins Warren, Schumer in Pressing Head of Employment Protections Commission on Attacks on Workers Undergoing IVF

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) joined U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in leading 12 of their Democratic Senate colleagues in pressing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Chair Andrea Lucas on the Commission's efforts to weaken a rule affirming employment protections for workers undergoing fertility treatments, including in-vitro fertilization (IVF). By law, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires employers to grant employees reasonable accommodations and in 2024, the EEOC set forth PWFA regulations explicitly affirming that these protections apply to workers undergoing IVF treatments. After President Trump appointed Lucas as Acting Chair, she announced the EEOC would be "reconsidering" the PWFA regulations to cut those workers out.

"(Removing workers undergoing IVF from the rule would) mak(e) it more likely that employers could deny accommodations to workers undergoing fertility treatment-or force them to work in conditions that could undermine their health or their treatment's success. We write to request that you abandon your efforts to weaken this rule," wrote the lawmakers.

Fertility treatments are intensive medical processes that have serious impacts on women's lives. IVF involves several daily needle injections, which can cause side effects like nausea, vomiting, bloating and fatigue. The fertility procedures themselves do not allow for flexible scheduling and can require intravenous sedation.

During his 2024 campaign, President Trump repeatedly claimed he was a supporter of fertility treatment, calling himself the "father of IVF" and even going as far as to promise that he would make fertilization treatments free. Yet, President Trump's Executive Order aiming to expand access to IVF, the implementation of which the Senators describe as "weak," "fail(s) to address the larger expense of IVF cycles." In particular, President Trump's attempt to get drug manufacturers to lower prices for IVF drugs only applies to a "narrow subset of drugs within the broader IVF regimen," leaving patients on the hook for the costs of other medications used, embryo storage and embryo transfers.

The Senators asked Chair Lucas to provide clarity on her attacks on workers undergoing fertility treatments by May 13, 2026.

In addition to Duckworth, Warren and Schumer, the letter was co-signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Tina Smith (D-MN).

The full text of the Senators' letter is available below and on the Senator's website.

Dear Ms. Lucas:

We write regarding a statement you issued last year indicating that you intend to modify your agency's rule that affirms the strong protections that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) grants workers undergoing fertility treatments. President Trump has claimed he wants to increase Americans' access to fertility treatments-even going as far as to dub himself "the Fertilization President." But modifying the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)'s PWFA regulations to remove individuals undergoing fertility treatments would break President Trump's promise, making it more likely that employers could deny accommodations to workers undergoing fertility treatment-or force them to work in conditions that could undermine their health or their treatment's success. We write to request that you abandon your efforts to weaken this rule.

President Trump has repeatedly held himself out as an ardent supporter of fertility treatment, especially in vitro fertilization (IVF). On the campaign trail, President Trump said: "We're totally in favor of IVF," "we really are the party for IVF," and "I'm the father of IVF." Once in office, President Trump dubbed himself "the fertilization president." He even claimed he would make fertilization treatments free, which he described as "tremendous goodies in the bag for women." This has not come to pass. President Trump has set forth an Executive Order purportedly aimed at expanding access to IVF, but its implementation has been weak. In particular, President Trump's attempt to get drug manufacturers to lower prices for IVF drugs only applies to a "narrow subset of drugs within the broader IVF regimen," failing to address the larger expense of IVF cycles, including the costs of all the medications used, embryo storage, and embryo transfers. And his proposed fertility benefits amount to little more than a voluntary invitation to employers to offer benefits if they want to, with no requirements or incentives to do so. At the same time, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which will kick 14.2 million people off their insurance by 203411-dashing the hopes of would-be parents who can no longer afford even the most basic of health care, let alone expensive fertility treatments. Now, his EEOC appointees are taking this betrayal a step further by undermining critical protections for workers undergoing fertility treatments.

In 2022, Congress passed-and President Biden signed into law-the PWFA, which requires employers to grant their employees reasonable accommodations for "known limitations" arising from "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." In many cases, this will boil down to (in your words) "water, a place to sit, fitting attire, increased access to the bathroom, and the like." The law directed the EEOC to issue legally binding regulations "provid[ing] examples of reasonable accommodations addressing known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." The Commission issued its final rule in 202, over your protests. The final rule, which reflects the clear meaning and intent of PWFA's statutory text, explicitly affirms that the PWFA protects women undergoing fertility treatment.

At the time, you objected to how the Commission interpreted the phrase "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." In your view, this phase should not include a worker undergoing fertility treatments, even though infertility is a medical condition related to pregnancy and childbirth. You were also hostile to the inclusion of menstruation, "hormone issues," and even lactation as medical conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth.

After you became Acting Chair, you announced your intention to rewrite the PWFA regulations to exclude these workers, indicating that you "remain[] opposed to the Commission's construction of the phrase "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions" described in the Final Rule . . . [and] intend[] for the Commission to reconsider portions of the Final Rule." Now that the Commission has a quorum again, you appear to be in a position to initiate the required notice-and-comment process to change the rule.

Fertility treatments are intensive medical processes that have serious impacts on women's lives. IVF involves several daily needle injections of medicines that can cause side effects like nausea, vomiting, bloating, and fatigue. To get the doses dialed in, patients must often visit their fertility clinic every 1-2 days over a two-week period for morning monitoring appointments, meaning frequent blood draws and transvaginal ultrasounds. And then there are the procedures themselves-egg retrieval and embryo transfer-one of which requires intravenous sedation and neither of which allows for flexible scheduling.

The PWFA protects workers' rights to accommodations for a wide range of medical conditions related to pregnancy-including IVF and other fertility treatments-and the EEOC's rule affirms those protections. The current regulation explicitly protects the right of workers undergoing IVF to request reasonable accommodations like short breaks to take medication, a schedule that accommodates daily monitoring appointments and medical procedures, or even access to a chair. These are exactly the kind of "small adjustments" that would allow these workers to continue to perform their jobs during their treatments and that, as you have pointed out, "should be expected from common decency and good manners, but sadly, sometimes [are] denied." This is why it is so important that the PWFA protects these workers-and that the relevant regulations make that clear. Yet, you have stated that you "intend[]" to remove these workers from the rule. Removing them from this rule does not change the fact that these workers are owed these protections, but it does make it more likely that employers will illegally deny women undergoing IVF their rights under PWFA.

President Trump designated you Acting Chair of the EEOC on January 20, 2025, and he renominated you to serve as Chair several months later. Your plan to remove workers undergoing fertility treatments from the rule reveals that President Trump's promise to "expand[] access" to IVF was entirely hollow. As one legal scholar put it, "[i]f a worker can't take time off for appointments, then cheaper treatment and greater health-care options are moot." Since you have taken over as Chair and announced your intention to change the EEOC's rule, workers undergoing IVF or other fertility treatments-or who plan to do so-cannot be certain that they will have access to reasonable accommodations for their treatments. And you have made this situation even worse by shrouding the EEOC's decision-making in secrecy. On January 14, 2026, you rescinded the Commission's voting procedures, placing all decisions to call public meetings and schedule Commission votes in your sole discretion. You should not make major decisions affecting the agency and the American people behind closed doors and without input from the public. The people who will be affected by your rewriting of the regulations deserve to know more about your intentions and your process.

We ask that you halt any further efforts to weaken EEOC rules that protect workers undergoing fertility treatments. And to provide the public with clarity about your intentions concerning the PWFA regulations and your consistency in enforcing the nation's employment civil rights laws, please answer the following questions by May 13, 2026:

1. Do you intend to change the EEOC's PWFA regulations to eliminate language explaining the PWFA's protections for workers undergoing IVF and other fertility treatments?

a. If so, please answer the following questions:

i. What is your timeline for removing this language?

ii. Will the comment period for the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process be of the same length as it was for the original rule (60 days)?

iii. Have you considered that removing IVF protections is inconsistent with the administration's policy, expressed in an executive order, to expand access to IVF?

iv. Have you consulted the White House on your intended course of action?

b. If not, please explain your change in position.

2. Do you intend to change the EEOC's PWFA regulations to eliminate language explaining the PWFA's protections related to menstruation, changes in hormone levels, or lactation?

a. If so, please answer the following questions:

i. What is your timeline for removing this language?

ii. Will the comment period for the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process be of the same length as it was for the original rule (60 days)?

b. If not, please explain your change in position.

3. Are you considering any other changes to the EEOC's current PWFA regulation, and if so, what are they?

Sincerely,

-30-