A federal judge in Texas has disregarded guidance from government agencies that aimed to protect against workplace harassment related to gender identity and sexual orientation.
Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, serving in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, ruled on Thursday that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had improperly issued guidance that misused pronouns, denied restroom access aligned with gender identity, and rejected attire corresponding to employees’ identities.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, individuals are safeguarded against discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, gender, and national origin.
The EEOC had recently updated its guidance on workplace harassment for the first time in 25 years under President Joe Biden in April 2022. This move came after a 2020 Supreme Court decision that confirmed protections against employment discrimination for gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals.
In August, Texas alongside the conservative Heritage Foundation, which is part of Project 2025, contested this guidance. They argued it served as a means for employers to navigate compliance with anti-discrimination laws but was not legally binding. Kacsmaryk refuted this notion by stating that the guidance delineated “essential standards” that would be applicable should an employer fail to comply.
This ruling represents another significant setback for workplace protections for transgender employees, following a January 2021 executive order under then-President Donald Trump that recognized only two “unchanging” genders: male and female.
Kacsmaryk, who was nominated by Trump in 2017, dismissed portions of the EEOC guidance that defined “gender” along with “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” entirely.
He noted, “Title VII does not necessitate that employers or courts ignore biological differences between men and women.” Heritage Foundation Chairman Kevin Roberts applauded the ruling, asserting it confronts “Biden’s attempts to compel businesses to abandon basic biological reality.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton echoed this sentiment, arguing against what he termed the “Pronoun Police” rules instituted by the federal government, stating there’s no requirement for Texans to conform to “workplace delusions.”
However, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), which had submitted an Amicus brief supporting the original EEOC guidance, criticized the ruling as out of step with Supreme Court precedent. Liz Serang, a senior member at the NWLC, described the decision as rage-filled and blatantly contradictory to established law.
Serang emphasized that the EEOC’s guidance promotes a simple principle: to avoid degrading others based on identity in the workplace.
Kacsmaryk’s interpretation is narrower than that of Bostock v. Clayton County, a landmark Supreme Court case that broadened the definition of sexual discrimination to include protections for LGBTQ+ workers. This precedent determined that employers cannot dismiss workers purely based on their sexual orientation or transgender status.
Jonathan Segal, an employment attorney at Duane Morris, noted that businesses should remain compliant with anti-discrimination laws while acknowledging the contentious nature of Kacsmaryk’s ruling. He cautioned against interpreting transgender rights too narrowly.
Segal also stressed that regardless of the existence of explicit guidance, employers must continue to navigate gender identity issues thoughtfully in the workplace.
Employers should be prepared for these scenarios, he suggested, given that the EEOC received over 3,000 complaints regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in both 2023 and 2024.
