Latest news with #U.S.EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission
NBC News
a day ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Civil rights agency sued over handling of trans worker discrimination complaints
Legal groups sued the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tuesday, claiming it is unlawfully refusing to enforce federal workplace protections for transgender workers. Led by Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, the federal agency charged with enforcing laws against workplace discrimination has moved swiftly to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes. Under Lucas's leadership, the EEOC has dropped several lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers, stalled progress on some new cases, and subjected others to heightened scrutiny. The lawsuit also alleges that the agency halted payments to state and local civil rights agencies for investigating gender identity discrimination claims. "For over 60 years, the EEOC's mandate has been to protect workers from discrimination, not to pick and choose who is deemed worthy of protection based on political interference," said Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which alongside the National Women's Law Center brought the case on behalf of Maryland LGBTQ+ advocacy group FreeState Justice. "The Trump-Vance administration's unlawful effort to erase protections for transgender people is cruel, and a violation of the law and the Constitution," Perryman continued in an emailed statement. The EEOC declined to comment on the lawsuit, and instead referred The Associated Press to the Department of Justice. The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Lucas, who is named in the lawsuit filed in Maryland U.S. District Court in Baltimore, has said that one of her priorities as Acting Chair would be "defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights." Last month she defended her decision to drop several lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers during her June 18 Senate committee confirmation hearing, saying her agency is not independent and must comply with the president's orders. "It was impossible to both comply with the president's executive order as an executive branch agency, and also zealously defend the workers we had brought the case on behalf," she said. However, Lucas acknowledged that a 2020 Supreme Court ruling — Bostock v. Clayton County — "did clearly hold that discriminating against someone on the basis of sex included firing an individual who is transgender or based on their sexual orientation." Plaintiffs argue that although the Bostock precedent "cemented protections for LGBTQ+ workers that the EEOC had already recognized for years" the agency has now "foreclosed transgender workers from the full set of charge investigation and other enforcement protections available to cisgender charging parties and categorically refuses to fully enforce the laws protecting against workplace sex discrimination tied to gender identity." The lawsuit, which cites two Associated Press reports detailing EEOC actions related to LGBTQ+ workers, alleges that the EEOC's "Trans Exclusion Policy" violates Supreme Court precedent, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection guarantee, and the Administrative Procedure Act. "Instead of serving its critical role to prevent discrimination in the workplace, the EEOC, under Andrea Lucas' leadership, is actually promoting discrimination," said Gaylynn Burroughs, Vice President for Education and Workplace Justice at NWLC, in an emailed statement about the lawsuit. "Transgender workers deserve to be protected against harassment, and the EEOC is obligated to do so under law. But the Trump administration seems hellbent on bullying transgender people in every possible way and ensuring that they are pushed out of all forms of public life, including their workplaces, so we're taking the administration to court."
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Civil rights agency sued over handling of transgender worker discrimination complaints under Trump
Legal groups sued the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tuesday, claiming it is unlawfully refusing to enforce federal workplace protections for transgender workers. Led by Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, the federal agency charged with enforcing laws against workplace discrimination has moved swiftly to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes. Under Lucas's leadership, the EEOC has dropped several lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers, stalled progress on some new cases, and subjected others to heightened scrutiny. The lawsuit also alleges that the agency halted payments to state and local civil rights agencies for investigating gender identity discrimination claims. 'For over 60 years, the EEOC's mandate has been to protect workers from discrimination, not to pick and choose who is deemed worthy of protection based on political interference,' said Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which alongside the National Women's Law Center brought the case on behalf of Maryland LGBTQ+ advocacy group FreeState Justice. 'The Trump-Vance administration's unlawful effort to erase protections for transgender people is cruel, and a violation of the law and the Constitution,' Perryman continued in an emailed statement. The EEOC declined to comment on the lawsuit, and instead referred The Associated Press to the Department of Justice. The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Lucas, who is named in the lawsuit filed in Maryland U.S. District Court in Baltimore, has said that one of her priorities as Acting Chair would be 'defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights.' Last month she defended her decision to drop several lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers during her June 18 Senate committee confirmation hearing, saying her agency is not independent and must comply with the president's orders. 'It was impossible to both comply with the president's executive order as an executive branch agency, and also zealously defend the workers we had brought the case on behalf,' she said. However, Lucas acknowledged that a 2020 Supreme Court ruling — Bostock v. Clayton County — 'did clearly hold that discriminating against someone on the basis of sex included firing an individual who is transgender or based on their sexual orientation.' Plaintiffs argue that although the Bostock precedent 'cemented protections for LGBTQ+ workers that the EEOC had already recognized for years' the agency has now 'foreclosed transgender workers from the full set of charge investigation and other enforcement protections available to cisgender charging parties and categorically refuses to fully enforce the laws protecting against workplace sex discrimination tied to gender identity.' The lawsuit, which cites two Associated Press reports detailing EEOC actions related to LGBTQ+ workers, alleges that the EEOC's 'Trans Exclusion Policy' violates Supreme Court precedent, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection guarantee, and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'Instead of serving its critical role to prevent discrimination in the workplace, the EEOC, under Andrea Lucas' leadership, is actually promoting discrimination,' said Gaylynn Burroughs, Vice President for Education and Workplace Justice at NWLC, in an emailed statement about the lawsuit. 'Transgender workers deserve to be protected against harassment, and the EEOC is obligated to do so under law. But the Trump administration seems hellbent on bullying transgender people in every possible way and ensuring that they are pushed out of all forms of public life, including their workplaces, so we're taking the administration to court.' ________ 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
Associated Press
2 days ago
- Politics
- Associated Press
Civil rights agency sued over handling of transgender worker discrimination complaints under Trump
Legal groups sued the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tuesday, claiming it is unlawfully refusing to enforce federal workplace protections for transgender workers. Led by Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, the federal agency charged with enforcing laws against workplace discrimination has moved swiftly to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes. Under Lucas's leadership, the EEOC has dropped several lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers, stalled progress on some new cases, and subjected others to heightened scrutiny. The lawsuit also alleges that the agency halted payments to state and local civil rights agencies for investigating gender identity discrimination claims. 'For over 60 years, the EEOC's mandate has been to protect workers from discrimination, not to pick and choose who is deemed worthy of protection based on political interference,' said Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which alongside the National Women's Law Center brought the case on behalf of Maryland LGBTQ+ advocacy group FreeState Justice. 'The Trump-Vance administration's unlawful effort to erase protections for transgender people is cruel, and a violation of the law and the Constitution,' Perryman continued in an emailed statement. The EEOC declined to comment on the lawsuit, and instead referred The Associated Press to the Department of Justice. The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Lucas, who is named in the lawsuit filed in Maryland U.S. District Court in Baltimore, has said that one of her priorities as Acting Chair would be 'defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights.' Last month she defended her decision to drop several lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers during her June 18 Senate committee confirmation hearing, saying her agency is not independent and must comply with the president's orders. 'It was impossible to both comply with the president's executive order as an executive branch agency, and also zealously defend the workers we had brought the case on behalf,' she said. However, Lucas acknowledged that a 2020 Supreme Court ruling — Bostock v. Clayton County — 'did clearly hold that discriminating against someone on the basis of sex included firing an individual who is transgender or based on their sexual orientation.' Plaintiffs argue that although the Bostock precedent 'cemented protections for LGBTQ+ workers that the EEOC had already recognized for years' the agency has now 'foreclosed transgender workers from the full set of charge investigation and other enforcement protections available to cisgender charging parties and categorically refuses to fully enforce the laws protecting against workplace sex discrimination tied to gender identity.' The lawsuit, which cites two Associated Press reports detailing EEOC actions related to LGBTQ+ workers, alleges that the EEOC's 'Trans Exclusion Policy' violates Supreme Court precedent, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection guarantee, and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'Instead of serving its critical role to prevent discrimination in the workplace, the EEOC, under Andrea Lucas' leadership, is actually promoting discrimination,' said Gaylynn Burroughs, Vice President for Education and Workplace Justice at NWLC, in an emailed statement about the lawsuit. 'Transgender workers deserve to be protected against harassment, and the EEOC is obligated to do so under law. But the Trump administration seems hellbent on bullying transgender people in every possible way and ensuring that they are pushed out of all forms of public life, including their workplaces, so we're taking the administration to court.' ________ 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
GMA Network
3 days ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
US to allow federal workers to promote religion in workplaces
WASHINGTON - Federal employees may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace, the Trump administration said on Monday, citing religious freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution. Agency employees may seek to "persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views" in the office, wrote Scott Kupor, director of the Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. government's human resources agency. Supervisors can attempt to recruit their employees to their religion, so long as the efforts aren't 'harassing in nature,' according to Kupor's statement. Agencies can't discipline their employees for declining to talk to their coworkers about their religious views. The statement represents the latest effort of the six-month-old Republican Trump administration to expand the role of religion in the federal workplace. Courts have long held that employers cannot suppress all religious expression in the workplace, but can lawfully curb conduct that is disruptive or imposes an undue hardship as long as it applies equally to members of any religion. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protects individuals' rights to practice their religion while preventing the government from favoring one religion or another or religion in general. OPM in mid-July said agency workers can get permission to work from home or adjust their hours to accommodate religious prayers, after previously demanding that workers report to offices fulltime. The new statement cites President Donald Trump's February executive order calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." That order directs cabinet secretaries to identify federal actions hostile to Christians. Trump has embraced the conservative Christian world view and promoted policies that speak to concerns that their religious liberty is under attack. Federal employees can also set up prayer groups in the workplace, so long as they don't meet during work hours, Kupor's statement said. The memo references Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that prohibits workplace discrimination based on a person's religion or religious practices. Kupor in the memo said that means the law requires employers to allow workers to proselytize, organize prayer groups on non-working time, and display religious icons. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces Title VII, has said that proselytizing in the workplace can amount to unlawful religious harassment if it is unwelcome and is so severe or pervasive that it creates a hostile or abusive work environment. "A consensual conversation about religious views, even if quite spirited, does not constitute harassment if it is not unwelcome," the agency said in a 2008 guidance document. Kupor's memo is not legally binding, and any court that reviews it could disagree about the scope of Title VII's protections. But the memo could be difficult to challenge directly in court, as judges in many past cases have said they lack the power to review internal agency documents. — Reuters
Forbes
6 days ago
- Politics
- Forbes
What Columbia's Deal With The Government Could Mean For Other Colleges
Columbia University has reached a deal resolving its dispute with the federal government. Attention ... More now turns to the broader implications for higher education. Now that Columbia University has finally reached an agreement with the Trump administration resolving several allegations that it violated federal anti-discrimination laws, attention is turning to what the deal could mean for higher education in general. As part of the deal struck this week, Columbia will pay $200 million over three years to the federal government. In addition, it agreed to dole out another $21 million to settle investigations brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In exchange, the university said that 'a vast majority of the federal grants which were terminated or paused in March 2025 will be reinstated, and Columbia's access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored.' Columbia's leaders insisted that 'the agreement preserves Columbia's autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making' and that much of it codified several reforms Columbia had already announced last March, including "enhancements to campus safety, changes to disciplinary processes, and renewed efforts to foster an inclusive and respectful learning environment.' But the resolution also requires Columbia to end its diversity programs, limit consideration of racial identity in its admissions practices, increase the information it reports on international students, and hire a new administrator to serve as a liaison for Jewish students. While some observers applauded the outcome, the university's attempt to cast the deal in the most favorable light possible was disputed by many others, who took exception to several concessions Columbia made, including the selection of Bart M. Schwartz (a former chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York) as an independent monitor that Columbia will have to pay to assess implementation of the resolution. Columbia will be required to provide regular reports to Schwartz about whether it's adhering to the agreement and complying with federal laws and regulations concerning admissions, hiring, and international students. The agreement – the most comprehensive settlement the government has reached with any of the several universities it's accused of antisemitism and other types of discrimination — may well have been the deal Columbia needed to strike for its own financial well being. Acting Columbia University President Claire Shipman seemed to think so: 'This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty. The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track," she said in a statement. Shipman emphasized this specific part of the resolution: 'No provision of this agreement, individually or taken together, shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate faculty hiring, university hiring, admissions decisions, or the content of academic speech.' She then added, 'This was our north star, and we did not waver from it. Columbia's governance remains in our control. The federal government will not dictate what we teach, who teaches, or which students we admit.' Time will tell if Columbia did the smart thing for itself by agreeing to this resolution. Cutting its losses, as this deal attempts to accomplish, might have been the best it could do, but the process raises broader questions. For example, will it make other institutions— like Harvard, which initially resisted the administration's pressure but is reportedly now negotiating with the government — more or less likely to come to terms? What should be of great concern to university leaders elsewhere is the dangerous precedent that's been established for how the federal government sets, monitors and enforces higher education policy across the country. The negotiated settlement with Columbia is almost certain to serve as a blueprint for how the administration will pressure other universities to change policies the president and his conservative supporters don't like. President Trump said as much himself, posting this on Truth Social, following the announcement of the agreement — 'Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming.' Secretary of Education Linda McMahon heralded the agreement as 'a seismic shift in our nation's fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.' McMahon, who is presiding over the rapid shrinking of her own department, went on to warn: 'Columbia's reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate. I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.' Is the new modus operandi for higher education going to become one where the federal government coerces a series of universities to make one ad hoc concession after the other so they can restore the funding the feds have withheld? Peace for a price, if the price is right? That's an approach David Pozen, the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at the Columbia Law School, has criticized as 'regulation by deal.' Sacrificing to survive is a framework fraught with difficulty. The government should not be able to dictate how universities are operated through individually negotiated transactions. Rather than following the traditional paradigm of Congress passing laws and the Department of Education promulgating and enforcing rules, such agreements serve largely as window dressing for federal shakedowns. As Pozen argues, 'the style of regulation reflected in the Columbia deal is at once far more coercive and far more arbitrary—opaque in development, unpredictable in application, deeply susceptible to personalism and corruption, and only contingently connected to the laws Congress has written.' Transactional administration, like that increasingly practiced under President Trump's leadership, substitutes back-door dealmaking and governmental coercion for principled policy directives and legal consistency. In the long run, that's a poor way to improve education, protect students, or promote fairness. And it's a dangerous path for our colleges and universities to be strong-armed into following. It has been painful to watch Columbia be bullied. It will be even harder to see other institutions succumb to the same strategy.
