Federal Judge Declares Mandated Workplace Pronouns, Unisex Bathrooms Unlawful
By Juliette Fairley
October 8, 2022 Updated: October 8, 2022

A federal judge in Texas has issued a ruling that prevents federal mandates from imposing pronouns and unisex bathrooms on employers.

In State of Texas v Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Matthew Kacsmaryk, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas in Amarillo, declared the March 2, 2021 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights Guidance and June 15, 2021 EEOC guidance unlawful. However, the court stopped short of granting the state’s request for injunctive relief.

“Title VII as interpreted in Bostock does not require such accommodations,” wrote Judge Kacsmaryk in his Oct. 1 decision. “The same is true of the March 2nd guidance. It exceeds Section 1557’s requirement and is not justified by Bostock and contrary to Defendant’s claims, the guidance binds agency staff failing to genuinely leave the agencies and their decision makers free to exercise discretion.”

Bostock v Clayton County is a 2020 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling that protects gay or transgender employees from workplace discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was initially enacted to end racial discrimination and segregation against blacks in public accommodations, public education, and federally assisted programs.

‘Most Employers 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.

“It was issued in direct response to a Texas gubernatorial order directing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate incidents of sex change procedures performed on minors,” Kacsmaryk stated.

As a result, Younger plans to use the opinion to defend his efforts to socialize his son as a boy.

“It’s going to be very difficult for courts now to claim that bringing up my biological boy as a son and teaching him his duties and rightful place as a man is outside the provision of normal parental rights,” Younger told The Epoch Times.

“I can no longer be prohibited from doing that because Kacsmaryk’s decision says protections for identifying as gay or transgender don’t extend to conduct. A man can identify as a woman and still pee in a urinal.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-ju...ium=left_sticky