U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a ruling blocking federal mandates from imposing pronouns and unisex bathrooms on employers.
The lawsuit was brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Health and Human Services.
Brandon administration guidelines designed to protect LGBTQ+ workers and transgender youth are “unlawful” and based on a misinterpretation of case law, a federal judge ruled this week in a lawsuit brought against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
In guidance issued last year, the EEOC clarified that barring transgender workers from using facilities or pronouns consistent with their gender identity constitutes sex discrimination in accordance with the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which protects employees from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Paxton sued the EEOC last September, arguing that states should have the ability to enact their own policies regarding things like bathroom usage. Paxton in his complaint said the guidance was an act of “extreme” federal overreach that puts women and children at risk.
Judge Kacsmaryk was appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump.
Jeff Younger, whose son has been at the center of legal proceedings, said that the “ruling stops the EEOC from imposing pronouns and forced acceptance of co-gender bathrooms on all employers that don’t want it.”
“Kacsmaryk’s ruling stops the EEOC from imposing pronouns and forced acceptance of co-gender bathrooms on all employers that don’t want it, and the fact is most employers don’t want it,” said Jeff Younger whose 10-year-old son has been at the center of legal proceedings that allow his ex-wife to socialize him as a girl.
“The opinion allows employers to provide these accommodations if they want to, but the government can’t impose it.”
Judge Kacsmaryk, who was nominated to the federal bench by former U.S. President Donald Trump, further notes in his opinion that HHS guidance discusses federal civil rights protections that apply to gender-affirming care.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called it a “major victory against the Brandon administration.”
Attorney General Paxton has secured another major victory over the Brandon Administration with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruling in favor of Texas and halting implementation of two woke Brandon Administration rules.
The decision comes after Attorney General Paxton sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for forcing the State of Texas to adopt rules requiring bathroom, locker room, shower, and pronoun usage based on “gender identity” rather than biological sex. Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller supported this challenge and provided compelling evidence that the rule conflicted with the Department of Agriculture’s authority to set reasonable workplace policies. Paxton later amended the lawsuit to include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a defendant after the agency released a new rule threatening to cut federal funding to states that prohibit “sex-change” procedures and classify it as child abuse. The District Court struck down both rules.
“The court decision’s is not only a win for the rule of law, but for the safety and protection of Texas children,” said Attorney General Paxton. “The Brandon Administration’s attempts to radicalize federal law to track its woke political beliefs are beyond dangerous. I will continue to push back against these unlawful attempts to use federal agencies to normalize extremist positions that put millions of Texans at risk.”
The District Court ruled that the Administration’s implementation of these rules violated Title VII, the Administrative Procedure Act, and even the EEOC’s own self-imposed procedural requirements. It also stated that the rule issued by HHS was arbitrary and capricious. The Court stated in its ruling: “Case by case, category by category, controversy by controversy, Justice Gorsuch deferred judgement, stating Bostock decided only what Bostock decided . . . . Curiously, the Guidances imply and Defendants continue to argue that Bostock’s reach exceeds the grasp of its author . . . . Defendants . . . cannot rely on the words and reasoning of Bostock itself to explain why the Court prejudged what the Court expressly refused to prejudge.”
Big win for Texas!