Back to TX v. EEOC:
Judge Kacsmaryk’s 5/15/25 TX v EEOC order turns on an obtusely literal and anticontextual reading of EEOC’s 2024 workplace harassment guidance’s statement that under Title VII, “sex” includes “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions” and sexual orientation and gender identity. This is his gambit. Kacsmaryk holds this unlawfully redefines Title VII "sex."
But a more generous reading, in context (this is, after all, guidance about workplace harassment) would interpret the EEOC’s language not as definition, but simply a categorical opening summary to a more detailed discussion. “[a]s discussed in this section.” the sentence ends, after all.
Have a look:
www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-harassment-workplace#_Toc164808002
That's where Kacsmaryk is dancing: by holding the EEOC guidance was definitional, Kacsmaryk tries to pull it outside Bostock’s scope, since in Bostock, Gorsuch skipped definitional disputes altogether. Didn't need 'em to get to the holding in Bostock.
Still, even without this EEOC guidance (which the current EEOC wasn't likely to enforce anyway, under this administration), employers will find it difficult to evade Bostock’s simple rule: you can’t discriminate against gay/trans without discriminating based on sex.
#Bostock
#EmploymentDiscrimination
#EEOC