
Fred Wang is a student at Harvard Law School.
In today’s news and commentary, employers react to Dobbs with criticism, internal policy change, or silence.
Employers — in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overrule Roe v. Wade — are offering to reimburse travel expenses for employees who cross state lines to access safe, legal abortions. Companies such as Disney and Dick’s Sporting Goods have promised to cover travel expenses to obtain abortions as part of their employment health-benefits plans. The decision surely provides some relief for many, many workers whose lives are now troublingly complicated by the Court’s decision in Dobbs.
But even pro-choice advocates have raised hesitations with these initiatives. Some have voiced privacy concerns with having to let your employer know that you are even getting an abortion. Some have discussed the problem of further tying the average American’s access to basic health care to their employer. And some are worried that employers will leverage these benefits in anti-worker ways, such as to discourage union activity. For example, Starbucks — which has offered to help pay for employee abortion-travel expenses — has said that it could not “make promises of guarantees about any benefits” for unionized stores. Of course, there is no compelling reason for Starbucks to deny these benefits to workers at its unionized stores. The real motivation, some suggest, is to “sabotage the union effort.”
Most of these employers, however, have offered little in the way of actual criticism of Dobbs’s holding. Likely because abortion is such a uniquely politically charged issue, large companies have approached the merits of the decision with abundant caution. Some have not even mentioned whether the decision would trigger further changes in company policy.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
July 3
California compromises with unions on housing; 11th Circuit rules against transgender teacher; Harvard removes hundreds from grad student union.
July 2
Block, Nanda, and Nayak argue that the NLRA is under attack, harming democracy; the EEOC files a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by former EEOC Commissioner Jocelyn Samuels; and SEIU Local 1000 strikes an agreement with the State of California to delay the state's return-to-office executive order for state workers.
July 1
In today’s news and commentary, the Department of Labor proposes to roll back minimum wage and overtime protections for home care workers, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by public defenders over a union’s Gaza statements, and Philadelphia’s largest municipal union is on strike for first time in nearly 40 years. On Monday, the U.S. […]
June 30
Antidiscrimination scholars question McDonnell Douglas, George Washington University Hospital bargained in bad faith, and NY regulators defend LPA dispensary law.
June 29
In today’s news and commentary, Trump v. CASA restricts nationwide injunctions, a preliminary injunction continues to stop DOL from shutting down Job Corps, and the minimum wage is set to rise in multiple cities and states. On Friday, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that […]
June 27
Labor's role in Zohran Mamdani's victory; DHS funding amendment aims to expand guest worker programs; COSELL submission deadline rapidly approaching