S.A. McCarthy | The Washington Stand
A federal judge has just determined that workplace “protections” for employees who identify as transgender are unlawful. On Thursday, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas handed down an order vacating guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2024 that allowed biological men to use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers in workplaces; required employers to allow transgender-identifying employees to dress in a manner inconsistent with their biological sex; and classified as workplace “harassment” referring to transgender-identifying individuals using their birth name or biological pronouns.
Texas and the Heritage Foundation promptly challenged the EEOC directive, arguing that the directive is “contrary to law” and that the EEOC overstepped its statutory authority in issuing the directive. The EEOC directive specifically cited Title VII in justifying its directive, classifying “gender identity” as a protected characteristic under “sex.” Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, clarified that the EEOC directive does not simply offer guidance on complying with Title VII stipulations but “fundamentally expands Title VII to include harassment based on gender identity.”
The EEOC directive “contravenes Title VII’s plain text by expanding the scope of ‘sex’ beyond the biological binary,” Kacsmaryk wrote. He continued, “Because neither the plain text of Title VII nor Supreme Court precedent defines Title VII ‘sex’ this broadly… the Enforcement Guidance lacks statutory or jurisprudential authority to expand Title VII’s definition of ‘sex’ to include these new categories.” The judge stipulated that the EEOC “is only authorized to issue procedural rules implementing Title VII” and “cannot issue new substantive rules and definitions derived from non-binding circuit case law.”
“Instead, the Guidance enters the forbidden realm of substance, moving beyond the plain text of Title VII or binding Supreme Court precedent to create a new unauthorized definition,” Kacsmaryk wrote. He concluded, “Thus, because the EEOC is only authorized to issue procedural rules implementing Title VII as written and interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Enforcement Guidance’s expansion of ‘sex’ is contrary to law.”
In a statement shared with The Washington Stand, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts hailed the court’s decision, saying, “This ruling is more than a legal victory. It’s a cultural one. It says ‘No — you don’t have to surrender common sense at the altar of leftist ideology. You don’t have to pretend men are women. And you don’t have to lie to keep your job.’” He added, “Heritage is doing exactly what the conservative movement needs to do: stop apologizing, start suing, and take back institutions.”
Heritage Foundation General Counsel Dan Mauler added, “We applaud Judge Kacsmaryk’s prudent decision to overturn Biden-era regulations that forced female employees to share spaces with men — something the vast majority of Americans reject as fundamentally wrong.” He continued, “Biden’s EEOC attempted to force all businesses and state governments to permit biological men into women-only spaces, including restrooms and locker rooms. Even worse, the Biden EEOC tried to force employees to lie about fundamental, undeniable truth by requiring employees to use preferred pronouns over biological fact.”
Commenting on the case, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Matt Bowman told TWS, “All employers have the constitutionally protected freedom to conduct their business in a manner consistent with their deeply held religious beliefs.” He continued, “Let us be clear: God purposely created humans as male and female as part of His perfect design. Now and always, forcing employers and employees to deny biological reality is a gross violation of the First Amendment. Our courts must uphold religious freedom for all employers and employees.”
SOURCE: THE WASHINGTON STAND
