Judge Matthew Caxmalick on Thursday – there are records in line with GOP’s most extreme legal status, the far-right federal judge of the Northern District of Texas –Issued a verdict Its title VII declares it is no longer protected LGBTQ+ People who discriminate at work. This decision is directly inconsistent with the rule of the Supreme Court Landmark 2020.Bostock v. Clayton Countydiscrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was determined to be, by definition, sex discrimination. Kacsmaryk’s decision is one of the most surprising judicial rollbacks of LGBTQ+ rights in recent memory, setting a direct legal challenge in one of the fundamental civil rights protections for queer and trans people in the United States.
Keep up with the latest LGBTQ+News and politics. Sign up for our supporters email newsletter.
The incident was brought to the EEOC by the state of Texas alongside the Heritage Foundation. Project 2025– A blueprint for aggressive right-wing policies expressly calling for LGBTQ+ protection in federal law. In siding with the plaintiffs, Judge Kakumalik pointed to the Texas Department of Agriculture’s current employee policies. It said, “requires employees to comply with this dress code in a way that matches their biological gender. The ruling also upheld the department’s policy that prohibits transgender employees from using toilets that match their gender identity.
The judge reached a verdict that Title VII “simply fire someone because he is gay or transgender,” but does not protect trans and gay people from “harassment.”
“In short, Title VII does not prohibit workplace employment policies that protect the inherent differences between men and women,” Kacsmaryk wrote in his ruling.
Judge Kacsmaryk further argued that different treatment of transgender employees does not constitute unequal treatment, deducing that “male employees must use male facilities like other men.” He extended that logic to dress codes and pronouns, arguing that adherence to garment standards based on gender assigned at birth and requiring the use of pronouns is not discriminatory as it applies “evenly” to everyone. This argument reflects unreliable legal reasoning. It was once used to support the ban on same-sex marriage– Such laws did not discriminate against homosexuals because they were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, like straight people. This is cyclical logic designed to mask exclusion as neutrality. It also flies in the face of the fact that Texas allows people who assigned women at birth to wear gender “pants, skirts, dresses” but denies the same rights to those assigned to men at birth.
Ultimately, Judge Kacsmaryk ordered the complete removal of all references to sexual orientation and gender identity as a protective class under Title VII from the EEOC Guidance. His ruling declares that all languages ​​that define “sex” in Title VII should be stripped from federal employment policies to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Specifically, target and disable section II(a)(5)(c) of the 2024 EEOC Guidance.
Domination is Bostockv. It faces Clayton County. The landmark case centered around Gerald Bostock, who was fired from county jobs after joining the gay softball league, and Amy Stevens, who was fired from the funeral home after telling his employer that he would begin to present him as a woman. In its 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court held that dismissing someone for being gay or transgender is inherently gender discrimination and therefore violates federal civil rights laws. Bostock focused on illegal termination, but it is credible to suggest that the same protection does not apply to workplace harassment or other forms of discriminatory treatment.
This is not Judge Kaxmalick’s first foray into far-right legal activities, but his trademark. He became the go-to jurist for plaintiffs, who are trying to turn extremist ideology into binding precedents. Who is he I tried to revoke FDA approval for Mifepristonesafe and widely used abortion medicine. He is I opposed LGBTQ+ protection With affordable care methods. He even tried to force him Parent-child relationship planning to pay $2 billion to Texas and Louisiana– Even the very outrageous, deeply conservative 5th Circuit threw it. Now he is aiming for Title VII itself, and is effectively inviting employers to harass and discriminate LGBTQ+ workers. Bostock It never happened.
Source: Advocate.com – www.advocate.com
