
A judge resisted Trump's order on gender identity. The EEOC just fired her
In February, Administrative Judge Karen Ortiz, who worked in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's New York office, called Trump's order "unethical" and criticized Acting Chair Andrea Lucas — Trump's pick to lead the agency — for complying with it by pausing work on legal cases involving discrimination claims from transgender workers. In an email copied to more than 1,000 colleagues, Ortiz pressed Lucas to resign.
Ortiz was fired on Tuesday after being placed on administrative leave last month. The EEOC declined Wednesday to comment on the termination, saying it does not comment on personnel matters.
In response to the president's order declaring two unchangeable sexes, the EEOC moved to drop at least seven of its pending legal cases on behalf of transgender workers who filed discrimination complaints. The agency, which enforces U.S. workplace anti-discrimination laws, also is classifying all new gender identity-related cases as its lowest priority.
The actions signaled a major departure from the EEOC's prior interpretation of civil rights law.
In her mass February email criticizing the agency's efforts to comply with Trump's order, Ortiz told Lucas, "You are not fit to be our chair much less hold a license to practice law." The letter was leaked on Reddit, where it gained more than 10,000 "upvotes." Many users cheered its author.
The EEOC subsequently revoked her email privileges for about a week and issued her a written reprimand for "discourteous conduct."
Ortiz said she continued to "raise the alarm" about the agency's treatment of transgender and gender-nonconforming complainants, and convey her opposition to the agency's actions. She sent an April 24 email to Lucas and several other internal email groups with the subject line, "If You're Seeking Power, Here's Power" and a link to Tears for Fears' 1985 hit "Everybody Wants to Rule the World."
She contested her proposed termination earlier this month, arguing in a document submitted by a union representative that she was adhering to her oath of office by calling out behavior she believes is illegal.
Ortiz "views the Agency's actions regarding LGBTQIA+ complainants to have made the EEOC a hostile environment for LGBTQIA+ workers," and believes that leadership has "abandoned the EEOC's core mission," the document says.
The judge was hired to work at the EEOC during the first Trump administration, and while she disagreed with some policies then, "she did not take any action because there was no ostensible illegality which compelled her to do so," the document stated. "What is happening under the current administration is unprecedented."
The letter requested the withdrawal of Ortiz's proposed termination, the removal of all disciplinary documents from her personnel file, and that Ortiz be allowed "to continue doing her job."
The six-page termination notice came anyway. In it, Chief Administrative Judge Regina Stephens called Ortiz' actions "distasteful and unprofessional," and concluded that Ortiz's "work performance is affected" by her disagreements with the current executive orders and direction of EEOC leadership.
The notice also alleged that media circulation of Ortiz's emails had "affected the reputation and credibility of the Agency." It cited an Associated Press article that quoted Ortiz saying she stood by her email statements as evidence that her behavior would not change with "rehabilitation."
In a Wednesday phone interview with The Associated Press, Ortiz said the news of her termination is "very sad," although not surprising. "I think the agency has now become something that, I don't know if I'd even really want to work there anymore. They've lost their way," she said.
Lucas defended her decision to drop lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers during her confirmation hearing before a Senate committee last week. She acknowledged that transgender workers are protected under civil rights laws but said her agency is not independent and must comply with presidential orders.
Ortiz said she traveled from New York to Washington "on my own dime, on my own time" to attend the hearing. "I needed to be there," she said, adding that she left thank-you notes for Senators who "put Andrea Lucas' feet to the fire."
Ortiz said she isn't sure what comes next for her, only that it will involve fighting for civil rights. And in the short-term, picking up more volunteer dog walking shifts. "I will keep fighting for the LGBTQ community in whatever way I can," she told AP.
She added: "It takes courage to take a stand, and be willing to be fired, and lose a six-figure job, and health insurance, and the prestige of the title of 'judge,' but I think it'll also serve an example to future lawyers and young lawyers out there that a job title isn't everything, and it's more important to stay true to your values."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Happy move for Cristiano Ronaldo as Georgina Rodríguez announces their engagement
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.


Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Bravo star Jennifer Welch claims 'fat' Trump voters should be banned from Mexican restaurants in explosive rant
A former Bravo star has been slammed after claiming 'fat a**' Trump voters should be 'banned' from Mexican, Chinese and Indian restaurants. Jennifer Welch, who formerly starred on short-lived reality show, Sweet Home, Oklahoma, took aim at white MAGA voters who support deporting illegal migrants but still have 'the audacity to walk into a Mexican restaurant.' Appearing on her I've Had It podcast, Welch ranted: 'I've had it with white people that triple Trumped. that have the nerve and the audacity to walk into a Mexican restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, an Indian restaurant, go to a gay hairdresser. 'I don't think you should be able to enjoy anything but Cracker Barrel.' Laying into 'triple Trumpers' - people who voted for Trump in the 2016, 2020 and 2024 elections - she said: 'If you want to triple Trump, if you want to brow beat DEI, if you want to brow beat gay people, you want to brow beat black people as you have been doing for hundreds of years… 'White people that triple Trumped should be boycotted, banned from enjoying the best thing that America has to offer, which is multiculturalism. Jennifer Welch took aim at white MAGA voters who support deporting immigrants but still have 'the audacity to walk into a Mexican restaurant - Trump pictured August 11 'Get your fat a***s out of the Mexican restaurant. Get your fat a***s over at a Cracker Barrel because nobody wants to see your f****ng smug a**, teeny weeny pink arm, big gut around. 'Nobody wants to see that s**t, no one.' Fans quickly slammed the 'pompous and arrogant' interior designer - with one writing: 'It's always the most intolerant and hateful pretending to love everyone. Others wrote: 'Yes listen to this elite rich white woman. 'What a pompous, arrogant thing to say. 'Uber Karen. I voted for Trump and I'm having a burrito with chorizo and spinach dip for lunch today. 'I know a lot of black, hispanic and Indian people who voted Trump three times as well. 'How about those Mexican-Americans, Thai, Chinese, Jewish, Muslim, black, Gay etc people that triple voted for Trump? I wonder what she thinks about them?' Back in April Welch had a tense debate with former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel when he joined I've Had It to discuss the problems within the Democratic Party. Emanuel previously served as Chicago's mayor from 2011 to 2019, was an adviser to President Bill Clinton, served as President Barack Obama 's chief of staff and was an ambassador to Japan under President Joe Biden. The two Democrats struggled to find a consensus on transgender rights and their conversation quickly morphed into a tense debate, hinting at a divide that may cause trouble in 2028. The issue has become a divisive topic across the aisle, but Republicans have seemed to find unity, while Democrats haven't formed a consensus on how to approach transgender rights. Welch, a more progressive member of the left, laid into Emanuel during their conversation when he accused Kamala Harris of not prioritizing economic issues, noting that Democrats weren't 'really good about the family room issues.' 'The only room we were doing really well was the bathroom, and that's the smallest room in the house,' he continued, referencing the ongoing debate about allowing transgender individuals to use the bathroom they prefer. The comment set Welch on a tirade, and she quickly responded that his claim was, 'total bulls**t.' Emanuel argued that transgender issues were 'tangential,' and not a core value on the left, to which Welch vehemently disagreed. 'I'm so sick of Democrats like you selling out and saying this. You know who talks about trans people more than anybody? MAGA. MAGA is the most genital-obsessed political party I have ever seen,' she said. Welch argued that Harris did have a comprehensive economic plan and even referenced the vice president's proposal to provide up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers. She went on to slam Donald Trump for 'droning on about Hannibal Lecter' and accused Democrats of losing because they're 'playing the game with the rulebook' while Republicans have 'ripped up the rulebook.' Emanuel then threw up his hands and pushed back, saying as mayor, he did deal with the 'bathroom issue' but that transgender rights were not a cornerstone of the Democratic party. 'They're the gender-obsessed weirdos, [Republicans], not us [Democrats]. We're the ones who fight for Social Security. We fight for Medicare, and yeah, we're not gonna bully trans people,' Welch argued.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the Trump-Putin summit: European leaders must help Zelenskyy resist a carve-up
In recent weeks, as Russia continued its assault on Ukraine in frank disregard of White House deadlines and demands, there was hope in Kyiv and European capitals that the scales might finally be falling from Donald Trump's eyes. Last month, Mr Trump noted that although his conversations with Vladimir Putin repeatedly led him to believe that a ceasefire deal was in reach, the Russian president then routinely went on to 'knock down a building in Kyiv'. More bluntly, he has accused Mr Putin of stringing him along with 'bullshit'. It was ostensibly on those grounds that the US president set an 8 August deadline for Mr Putin to agree to a peace deal with Ukraine, on pain of 'significant' sanctions. Yet instead of being punished for ignoring this injunction too, Mr Putin has been rewarded with a summit with Mr Trump in the United States, and apparently allowed to veto any suggestion that Volodymyr Zelenskyy should also attend. Suddenly, and alarmingly, it feels a little like February again, when Mr Trump and his vice-president, JD Vance, treated Mr Zelenskyy with outrageous disrespect in the White House, and appeared disposed to pursuing a peace agreement on Mr Putin's terms. There are conflicting accounts of discussions between Mr Putin and the US presidential envoy, Steve Witkoff, last week. But there is no evidence that Mr Putin has any intention of compromising on his maximalist goals in Ukraine, including the annexation of eastern regions, demilitarisation and the abandoning of Ukraine's aspiration to Nato membership. Morally and practically speaking, the Ukrainian president's absence on Friday will mean that any 'deal' struck by Mr Trump and Mr Putin in Alaska lacks all legitimacy. But Kyiv understandably fears a carve-up in which Ukraine is pressured by Washington and Moscow to unilaterally surrender land in its east, and make other concessions, in exchange for a pause in the fighting. This would be, of course, to reward Mr Putin's illegal invasion and betray a nation whose fate is tied up with Europe's security as a whole. The very fact of Friday's summit, from which European leaders are also excluded, is already a wholly unearned diplomatic win for Mr Putin. Mr Trump is driven by mercantilism and ego: he may be persuaded that if Ukraine could be bullied into accepting the unacceptable, opportunities relating to Russian oil and gas could be unleashed, and the Nobel peace prize he covets become a genuine possibility. After frantic mediation, it emerged on Monday that Mr Zelenskyy and European leaders may take part in a joint call with Mr Trump on Wednesday. The Ukrainian president has already made it clear that there will be no concession of further territory to Russia's occupying forces. In the lead-up to Alaska, and afterwards, Europe must ensure that his words are lent weight by a unified and robust stance on what would constitute a just peace, as opposed to one imposed against Ukraine's will. Ultimately, that will need to include credible security guarantees for Kyiv from Europe and the US, and an agreed sanctions regime to be enacted should Russia renege on its commitments. But the first priority must be pressuring Mr Putin to agree to a ceasefire immediately in order that meaningful negotiations can begin. Until last week, that appeared to be the approach Mr Trump had decided to adopt. It was the right one. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.