ABORTION LAWS REVISTED

Appeals Court Revives Challenge to New York Law on Abortion Retaliation Protections

By Sharnellia Bennett-Smith

New York, NY - A federal appeals court has reopened a challenge to a New York law that prohibits employers from retaliating against workers who have abortions or make other reproductive healthcare decisions. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy must reconsider his dismissal of a lawsuit filed by several anti-abortion organizations, including CompassCare, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), and a Baptist church near Rochester, New York.

The plaintiffs argue that the 2019 law infringes on their First Amendment rights, particularly their freedom of association. They claim the law forces them to retain employees whose reproductive choices conflict with their organizational missions, which they say are rooted in religious or moral opposition to abortion. The appeals court’s decision highlights the ongoing tension between protecting employees’ reproductive rights and preserving employers’ religious freedoms.

The ruling comes in the wake of a similar 2023 case where the court determined that the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association could exempt certain organizations from hiring individuals whose actions are incompatible with their core values. In line with this precedent, the court has now directed Judge McAvoy to reevaluate the dismissal of the current lawsuit.

However, the court also overturned McAvoy’s decision to block a provision of the law requiring employers to inform workers of their rights via employee handbooks. The appeals court deemed this requirement to be informational rather than coercive, asserting that it merely ensures employees are aware of the law’s protections without imposing on the employers’ religious or moral beliefs.

New York’s 2019 law was designed to protect employees from workplace discrimination based on their reproductive healthcare choices, such as obtaining an abortion or using contraception. Proponents of the law argue that it safeguards personal autonomy and ensures that employees are not penalized for making private healthcare decisions.

Critics of the law, however, contend that it undermines the rights of religious and moral organizations to operate in alignment with their principles. “This is about preserving the integrity of our mission,” said a spokesperson for CompassCare. “We cannot, in good conscience, be forced to employ individuals whose actions directly contradict our purpose.”

The case is expected to reignite debates over the balance between reproductive rights and religious freedoms, which have become increasingly polarized in the post-Roe v. Wade era. Legal experts note that the final decision could set a significant precedent for how similar conflicts are resolved nationwide.

As the lawsuit proceeds, both sides await further judicial clarification on the extent to which the government can enforce non-discrimination protections in the workplace without infringing on the constitutional rights of religious and moral organizations. The outcome will likely have far-reaching implications for the intersection of employment law, reproductive rights, and First Amendment protections in New York and beyond.