Latest news with #MatthewKacsmaryk
Reuters
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
California woman pleads guilty to threatening judge in abortion pill case
May 19 (Reuters) - A California woman pleaded guilty on Monday to threatening to injure a federal judge in Texas and warning him to "watch his back" after he suspended approval of the abortion pill mifepristone in 2023. Dolly Kay Patterson entered her plea in Dallas federal court on the same day she was scheduled to go on trial on charges related to a threat that, according to court papers, had been directed at U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo. According to court papers, opens new tab, she admitted that on April 16, 2023, she sent a message through an online form on the district court's website stating: "Tell this antiabortion judge he needs to watch his back--and that of his kids--the rest of his life!" That message was sent a little over a week after Kacsmaryk, who was appointed to the bench by Republican President Donald Trump during his first term, suspended the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's two-decade-old approval of mifepristone. The U.S. Supreme Court later in June 2024 overturned an appeals court's decision that had partially upheld Kacsmaryk's ruling, preserving, for now, access to a medication used in more than 60% of U.S. abortions. The abortion pill case was originally brought by anti-abortion groups and doctors. While the Supreme Court concluded they lacked standing to pursue the case, the Republican-led states of Idaho, Missouri and Kansas are now seeking to litigate the case in their place. Prior to Monday's plea, Patterson had disputed government claims that she confessed to sending the message when the U.S. Marshals Service subsequently visited her home and argued that no evidence existed tying her to the message. As part of a plea deal, opens new tab, Patterson, a retired former employee of Stanford University, agreed to plead guilty to just one of the two charges against her. That charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Lawyers for Patterson did not respond to requests for comment. The case against Patterson was filed amid a surge in threats to judges nationally, prompting the federal judiciary to push Congress for increased security funding to help it ensure the safety of judges and their families. A Reuters investigation this month identified at least 11 federal judges whose families have recently faced threats of violence or harassment after they ruled against the Trump administration. Pizzas have also been sent anonymously to the homes of several judges and their relatives. During a hearing in March 2023 in the abortion pill case, Kacsmaryk, a former Christian legal activist, said his division had received a "barrage" of death threats and harassing phone calls and voicemails since the lawsuit began. A Florida woman, Alice Marie Pence, in June pleaded guilty to threatening Kacsmaryk in March 2023 that he should "watch out for the red dot on your forehead" and make "the right decision." She was sentenced in November to 10 months in prison. The case is U.S. v. Patterson, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, No. 2:24-cr-00070. For the United States: Tiffany Eggers and Jongwoo Chung of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas For Patterson: Paul Herrmann of The Herrmann and Archer Law Firm Read more: US judges warn of threats, ask Congress for more security funding US Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill mifepristone Woman arrested for threatening to kill Texas federal judge in abortion pill case Texas judge in abortion pill lawsuit often rules for conservatives
Fast Company
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Fast Company
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.
CTV News
16-05-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Federal judge strikes down workplace protections for transgender workers
The emblem of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is shown on a podium in Vail, Colorado, Feb. 16, 2016, in Denver. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File) A federal judge in Texas struck down guidance from a government agency establishing protections against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Thursday determined that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission exceeded its statutory authority when the agency issued guidance to employers against deliberately using the wrong pronouns for an employee, refusing them access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, and barring employees from wearing dress code-compliant clothing according to their gender identity because they may constitute forms of workplace harassment. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The EEOC, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, had updated its guidance on workplace harassment in April of last year under President Joe Biden for the first time in 25 years. It followed a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that gay, lesbian and transgender people are protected from employment discrimination. Texas and the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, in August challenged the guidance, which the agency says serves as a tool for employers to assess compliance with anti-discrimination laws and is not legally binding. Kacsmaryk disagreed, writing that the guidance creates 'mandatory standards ... from which legal consequences will necessarily flow if an employer fails to comply.' The decision marks the latest blow to workplace protections for transgender workers following President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 executive order declaring that the government would recognize only two 'immutable' sexes — male and female. Kacsmaryk, a 2017 Trump nominee, invalidated all portions of the EEOC guidance that defines 'sex' to include 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity,' along with an entire section addressing the subject. 'Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,' he wrote in the opinion. Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts commended the decision in an emailed statement: 'The Biden EEOC tried to compel businesses — and the American people — to deny basic biological truth. Today, thanks to the great state of Texas and the work of my Heritage colleagues, a federal judge said: not so fast.' He added: '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." Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also touted the victory against 'Biden's 'Pronoun Police' Rule" in a Friday press release, saying: 'The federal government has no right to force Texans to play along with delusions or ignore biological reality in our workplaces.' The National Women's Law Center, which filed an amicus brief in November in support of the harassment guidance, blasted the decision in an emailed statement. 'The district court's decision is an outrage and blatantly at odds with Supreme Court precedent,' said Liz Theran, senior director of litigation for education and workplace justice at NWLC. 'The EEOC's Harassment Guidance reminds employers and workers alike to do one simple thing that should cost no one anything: refrain from degrading others on the job based on their identity and who they love. This decision does not change the law, but it will make it harder for LGBTQIA+ workers to enforce their rights and experience a workplace free from harassment.' Kacsmaryk offered a more narrow interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark Supreme Court case that established discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ workers, saying in his decision that the Supreme Court 'firmly refused to expand the definition of 'sex' beyond the biological binary,' and found only that employers could not fire workers for being gay or transgender. Employment attorney Jonathan Segal, a partner at Duane Morris who advises companies on how best to comply with anti-discrimination laws, emphasized that legal minds may disagree on the scope of Bostock, and Kacsmaryk's decision is just one interpretation. 'If you assume that a transgender employee has no rights beyond not being fired for transgender status, you are likely construing their rights too narrowly under both federal and state law,' which would put employers in a risky position, Segal said. And regardless of whether explicit guidance is in place, employers still need to address gender identity conflicts in the workplace, according to Tiffany Stacy, an Ogletree Deakins attorney in San Antonio who defends employers against claims of workplace discrimination. 'From a management perspective, employers should be prepared to diffuse those situations,' Stacy said. The EEOC in fiscal year 2024 received more than 3,000 charges alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and 3,000-plus in 2023, according to the agency's website. The U.S. Department of Justice and the EEOC declined to comment on the outcome of the Texas case. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Trump appointee, voted against the harassment guidelines last year but has been unable to rescind or revise them after Trump fired two of the three Democratic commissioners, leaving the federal agency without the quorum needed to make major policy changes. But earlier this month, Trump tapped an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida, Brittany Panuccio, to fill one of the vacancies. If Panuccio is confirmed by the Senate, the EEOC would regain a quorum and establish a Republican majority 2-1, clearing the path to fully pivot the agency toward focusing on Trump's priorities. 'It is neither harassment nor discrimination for a business to draw distinctions between the sexes in providing single-sex bathrooms,' Lucas wrote in a statement expressing her dissent to that aspect of the guidelines. In her four-month tenure as Acting Chair, Lucas has overhauled the agency's interpretation of civil rights law, including abandoning seven of its own cases representing transgender workers alleging they have experienced discrimination, and instructing employees to sideline all new gender identity discrimination cases received by the agency. The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Claire Savage, The Associated Press
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Judge Rules It's OK to Discriminate Against LGBTQ People
A MAGA judge in Texas has issued a sweeping ruling that destroys workplace discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people in the United States. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who holds a reputation for being a far-right activist judge, declared that while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not protect LGBTQ people from workplace harassment based on their sexual or gender orientation. The case was brought forth by the Heritage Foundation, a far-right, culturally conservative organization that heavily influenced the writings and goals of Project 2025. Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, specifically targeted transgender people in his ruling, stating that they had to simply deal with any kind of discriminatory treatment in their workplace. He deduced that 'a male employee must use male facilities like other males,' an assertion that completely invalidates transgender identity in its entirety rather than actually acknowledging the issues they face at work. Kacsmaryk even went so far as to order federal employment policy to remove'all language defining 'sex' in Title VII to include 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity.'. This all directly contradicts the Supreme Court's 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, which stated plainly that Title VII protects LGBTQ workers from identity-based firing and harassment. Kacsmaryk is not new to this. He has been referred to as the 'go-to jurist' for right wingers looking for judicial validation for cruel, oppressive, and deeply culturally conservative policy. He attacked LGBTQ protections in the Affordable Care Act, suspended FDA approval of the live-saving abortion pill mifepristone, and tried (and failed) to make Planned Parenthood pay $2 billion to Texas and Louisiana on the grounds that they were 'defrauding' Medicaid. This is yet another coordinated attack from the right intended to erode hard fought social justice victories.
Washington Post
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Federal judge strikes down workplace protections for transgender workers
A federal judge in Texas struck down guidance from a government agency specifying protections against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Thursday determined that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission exceeded its statutory authority when the agency issued guidance to employers against deliberately using the wrong pronouns for an employee, refusing them access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, and barring employees from wearing dress code-compliant clothing according to their gender identity because they may constitute forms of workplace harassment.
