This new ruling cuts protections for transgender workers
Federal judge and Trump appointee Matthew J. Kacsmaryk issued a ruling on Friday that will significantly alter the protections that transgender employees are entitled to in the workplace. The decision impacts the current guidance on workplace harassment from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in a move that reflects the agency's new priorities under the Trump administration and new acting chair Andrea Lucas.
In the ruling, Kacsmaryk struck down a section of the EEOC's guidance that applied to trans and gender-nonconforming workers, arguing the agency did not have the authority to foist those guidelines on employers. The agency's guidance had stated that misgendering employees, denying them access to appropriate bathrooms, or barring them from dressing in line with their gender identity could constitute workplace harassment.
Updates to workplace harassment guidance
The EEOC had updated its guidance on workplace harassment last year for the first time in decades, following a major Supreme Court ruling in 2020 that codified workplace protections for LGBTQ+ employees. (Over the last two years, the agency has also fielded well over 6,000 charges that alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.)
But Kacsmaryk ruled that the agency's interpretation of the Supreme Court decision was too broad and imposed 'mandatory standards' on employers, contradicting the EEOC's claim that the guidance was not legally binding. Kacsmaryk also cited the 'biological differences between men and women' and said the EEOC's guidance 'contravenes Title VII's plain text by expanding the scope of 'sex' beyond the biological binary.'
A new administration's priorities
Trump had already undermined protections for LGBTQ+ workers in one of his first executive orders, which dictated that the government would only recognize two biological sexes. And even prior to this ruling, the new administration had already influenced the EEOC's priorities: In her new capacity as acting chair, Lucas said the agency would now focus on 'defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights' and complying with Trump's executive orders.
Over the last few months, there have been several reports that the EEOC is dismissing lawsuits that were already underway involving allegations of discrimination against trans or gender-nonconforming workers. The agency is also reportedly de-prioritizing new charges related to gender identity and discouraging EEOC judges from hearing existing cases that are under investigation. (The EEOC has not commented on these reports.)
Since Trump dismissed EEOC commissioners Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, the agency has lacked a quorum and been unable to make formal revisions to its guidance—including the workplace harassment guidelines, which Lucas had voted against when they were issued in 2024. Earlier this month, however, Trump nominated a new commissioner who would secure a Republican majority at the EEOC if confirmed, enabling the agency to revoke prior guidance and make other consequential changes to worker protections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Five big Supreme Court cases to watch as term closes with birthright citizenship and more
The Supreme Court decides some of its most important cases in June. The justices generally break for the summer at the end of the month or in early July, and the toughest appeals take the longest to sort out from a term that starts in October. As we enter June's first scheduled opinion day, Thursday, dozens of decisions remain. Below are five of the disputes I'm watching for this month (and however far into July we go) — with the caveat that some of the court's most consequential work comes on the shadow docket, where orders on emergency applications can drop anytime. This is a weird one, procedurally. It started on the shadow docket, with an emergency application from the Trump administration that, like so many others this term, sought urgent relief from lower court injunctions against illegal executive actions. But instead of summarily deciding the application without explanation, as is the typical practice, the justices granted a rare hearing, held it in a special May 15 session and still haven't decided the case. As a reminder, we aren't expecting an answer to the big question of whether Donald Trump's executive order against birthright citizenship is legal. That's because the administration only asked the justices to say that the trial judges who ruled against the order shouldn't have been allowed to grant nationwide injunctions. So the forthcoming ruling could be limited to that procedural issue, which also has important consequences for all sorts of other lawsuits against the administration. But we'll be looking for any hints from the court on that crucial, underlying citizenship question, even if a final answer won't come this term. The Skrmetti case was the one to watch heading into the term, and we're still waiting on a ruling following the Dec. 4 hearing. At issue is the constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and the court's decision could also have implications for bans in other states around the country. The court at the hearing sounded ready to approve the ban. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusal led to a tie vote (and therefore a nonruling) in a case from Oklahoma that could've approved the country's first religious public charter school. But other religion-related cases remain, including an appeal from Maryland parents who want to keep their elementary public school kids away from LGBTQ-themed books. While the parents say they face an 'impossible choice' between subjecting their children to instruction against their beliefs or losing out on public education, school officials say the parents aren't deprived of religious rights just because their kids are exposed to material the parents find offensive. Mexico wants to press a novel, multibillion-dollar lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers for the wreckage their weapons have caused in the neighboring southern nation. A federal appeals court removed a roadblock to the suit last year, but then the weapons manufacturers sought the Supreme Court's help. They argued that Mexico's claim is too attenuated because it's based on 'an eight-step causal chain — peppered by independent criminal actors and derivative sovereign harms — to try to link the lawful production and sale of firearms within the United States to the chaos ravaging Mexico courtesy of its drug cartels.' The high court sounded inclined to agree at a March hearing, but we'll have to see if the opinion confirms the lack of industry accountability. Another billion-dollar industry seemed to fare less well at its hearing before the justices. An adult industry trade group raised a constitutional challenge to a Texas law requiring age-verification to access pornographic sites. More specifically, the industry argued at the high court that an appeals court used the wrong legal standard when ruling against it. The impending ruling could have vast First Amendment implications beyond porn, though sympathy for Texas' stated goal of protecting children, coupled with antipathy toward pornography generally, could lead to an opinion that at least attempts to confine any free speech restrictions to the lurid context. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As a Florida teacher, I must navigate education restrictions with integrity
As I prepare to teach a new literature course at Palm Beach State College (PBSC) this term, I find myself hesitating over something that, until recently, would have been routine: selecting the works I assign to my students. The anthology adopted by our department includes powerful selections from African American, Latino, Asian American and LGBTQ writers — voices that capture the richness, contradiction and struggle of the American experience. These are voices I have taught for decades. But now I ask myself: Am I allowed to? Florida's 2023 legislation — most notably, Senate Bill 266 — prohibits instruction that espouses theories suggesting systemic racism, sexism, or privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and that they were created to maintain social or economic inequities. The language is broad, and the intent seems clear: to restrict the way educators discuss identity, history and power. But what is less clear is what this means in practice for teachers like me, particularly in college classrooms. I am a lifelong educator. I spent 36 years in the New York City Board of Education as a teacher, department chair and supervisor. For the last 12 years, I have taught English literature at PBSC. My passion has always been to encourage students to read deeply, think critically and reflect honestly — especially about the kind of country we live in and the lives we each bring to the table. That requires a broad and inclusive literary canon. It requires teaching James Baldwin and Langston Hughes not only for their artistry, but for the searing truths they offer about race and belonging in America. It means examining the cultural double-consciousness in Sandra Cisneros, the generational trauma in Ocean Vuong, the gender defiance in Audre Lorde. Literature becomes real when it speaks both to and through the student reading it. That is the essence of education. Opinion: Bipartisan support suggests better sex ed in FL schools. It's the opposite. But now, when I consider assigning those same texts, I worry: will presenting such works — even neutrally, even for discussion — be seen as violating this law? If I ask students to consider the historical roots of injustice in a work by August Wilson or Toni Cade Bambara, could that be construed as 'promoting a theory' rather than simply exposing students to a reality reflected in literature? Worse, the chilling effect has begun to erode the classroom itself. Faculty colleagues increasingly wonder whether they should self-censor — not out of agreement with the law, but out of a desire to avoid trouble. This is the real damage: when fear begins to replace curiosity, and when silence replaces speech. I do not seek to indoctrinate my students. I never have. I seek to challenge them, to open doors through literature that lead into the complicated, layered, and sometimes uncomfortable questions that make up life in a pluralistic democracy. That is not political. That is educational. Opinion: As a professor, I see how universities are failing. We need a new approach. Let us be clear: removing or discouraging the inclusion of marginalized voices in the classroom does not eliminate discomfort. It only eliminates understanding. If our students cannot engage with difficult truths in college classrooms, where are they to encounter them? If we cannot safely present a range of American experiences through our literary heritage, what remains of our intellectual freedom? I do not write this out of defiance, but out of love — for teaching, for literature and for the role education plays in shaping thoughtful citizens. The danger of this legislation is not only in its enforcement, but in its ambiguity. It turns teachers into second-guessers. It turns students into cautious bystanders. And it risks turning Florida's classrooms into places where only the most neutral, safest voices are heard. But the world is not neutral. Literature is not safe. And education, at its best, is a form of illumination, not erasure. Carmine Giordano is an adjunct lecturer in English at Palm Beach State College. He lives in Lake Worth Beach, and wrote this for The Palm Beach Post. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: FL law could silence Black, LGBTQ voices in the classroom | Opinion
CBS News
36 minutes ago
- CBS News
Westmoreland County attorney Robert Klingensmith dies days after bloody standoff with police
Robert Klingensmith, the Westmoreland County attorney who shot himself during a bloody standoff with police over the weekend, has died. Police said Klingensmith shot and wounded himself in his office before they tased him for ignoring repeated demands to stop moving while they served a search warrant. It was all caught on camera. According to the Allegheny County Medical Examiner's Office, Klingensmith, 61, died on Wednesday afternoon from the self-inflicted injury. Klingensmith had been charged with theft and exploiting an older or care-dependent person. The district attorney's office said Klingensmith was the representative for a woman who died, and that Klingensmith failed to pay money from this woman's estate to her heirs. Instead, officials say he transferred more than $300,000 from the woman's account to his personal account.
