Federal Judge Strikes Down LGBTQ Protections Against Workplace Discrimination

On Thursday, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — a far-right federal judge in the Northern District of Texas with a record of aligning with the GOP’s most extreme legal positions — issued a ruling declaring that Title VII no longer protects LGBTQ+ people from workplace discrimination. The decision directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s landmark 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is, by definition, sex discrimination. Kacsmaryk’s ruling marks one of the most alarming judicial rollbacks of LGBTQ+ rights in recent memory — and sets up a direct legal challenge to one of the foundational civil rights protections for queer and trans people in the United States.

The case was brought against the EEOC by the state of Texas alongside the Heritage Foundation, a central force behind Project 2025 — an aggressive right-wing policy blueprint that explicitly calls for rolling back LGBTQ+ protections in federal law. In siding with the plaintiffs, Judge Kacsmaryk pointed to the Texas Department of Agriculture’s current employee policy, which requires “employees to comply with this dress code in a manner consistent with their biological gender,” specifying that “men may wear pants” and “women may wear dresses, skirts, or pants.” The ruling also upheld the department’s policy banning transgender employees from using restrooms that align with their gender identity.

The judge reached a verdict that Title VII only protects “firing someone simply for being homosexual or transgender,” but that it does not protect transgender or gay people from “harassment”:

“In sum, Title VII does not bar workplace employment policies that protect the inherent differences between men and women,” Kacsmaryk writes in his ruling.

Judge Kacsmaryk further argued that disparate treatment of transgender employees does not constitute unequal treatment, reasoning that “a male employee must use male facilities like other males” — a statement that erases transgender identity altogether. He extended that logic to dress codes and pronouns, claiming that requiring employees to adhere to clothing standards and pronoun use based on their assigned sex at birth is not discriminatory because it applies “equally” to everyone. The argument mirrors the discredited legal reasoning once used to uphold bans on same-sex marriage — that such laws didn’t discriminate against gay people because they, like straight people, were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. It’s a circular logic designed to mask exclusion as neutrality. It also flies in the face of the fact that Texas allows people assigned female at birth to wear gender “pants, skirts, and dresses” but denies that same right to people assigned male at birth.

Ultimately, Judge Kacsmaryk ordered the complete removal of all references to sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under Title VII from EEOC guidance. His ruling declares that “all language defining ‘sex’ in Title VII to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’” must be stripped from federal employment policy. Specifically, it targets and nullifies Section II(A)(5)(c) of the 2024 EEOC guidance, which states: “Sex-based discrimination under Title VII includes employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The ruling flies in the face of Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII protects LGBTQ+ workers from discrimination. The landmark case centered on Gerald Bostock, who was fired from a county job after joining a gay softball league, and Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman dismissed from a funeral home after informing her employer she would begin presenting as a woman. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that firing someone for being gay or transgender is inherently sex-based discrimination, and thus violates federal civil rights law. While Bostock focused on wrongful termination, it strains credulity to suggest that the same protections wouldn’t also apply to workplace harassment or other forms of discriminatory treatment under the very same statute.

This isn’t Judge Kacsmaryk’s first foray into far-right legal activism — it’s his trademark. He’s become the go-to jurist for plaintiffs looking to turn extremist ideology into binding precedent. He’s the one who tried to revoke FDA approval of mifepristone, a safe and widely used abortion medication. He’s ruled against LGBTQ+ protections in the Affordable Care Act. He even tried to force Planned Parenthood to pay $2 billion to Texas and Louisiana — a ruling so outrageous that even the deeply conservative Fifth Circuit tossed it. Now, he’s taking aim at Title VII itself, effectively inviting employers to harass and discriminate against LGBTQ+ workers by pretending Bostock never happened.

This piece was republished with permission from Erin In The Morning.