A Texas federal judge struck down EEOC workplace protections for LGBTQ+ employees, ruling the agency overstepped its authority in interpreting civil rights laws.

At a Glance

• Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk invalidated EEOC guidance protecting LGBTQ+ workers from harassment
• The ruling challenges protections established by the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision
• Texas and The Heritage Foundation argued the EEOC exceeded its regulatory authority
• Legal experts warn the decision could undermine transgender workplace protections
• The EEOC reported over 3,000 discrimination charges based on sexual orientation or gender identity in 2023-2024

Judge Kacsmaryk Overturns EEOC Guidance

Federal Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk has invalidated guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that extended workplace harassment protections to individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Texas-based judge ruled that the EEOC exceeded its authority by issuing the guidance, which was based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court’s landmark 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County that protected LGBTQ+ individuals from employment discrimination.

The challenge to the EEOC guidance came from Texas and the conservative Heritage Foundation, who argued the agency was imposing mandatory standards beyond its regulatory scope. Kacsmaryk’s decision specifically invalidated portions of the guidance that included sexual orientation and gender identity under the protected category of “sex” discrimination, offering a narrower interpretation of the Bostock decision than the EEOC had implemented.

Deflection from a few key alterations:
1. Integration of Faith and State, making it a protective shield for his elite. https://t.co/bCyBpzwvGj

2. The SAVE Act, Documentation Barriers: The SAVE Act requires voters to provide a passport, birth certificate, or other citizenship…

— MagicJon (@Magic_Jon3) April 20, 2025

Conservative Praise and Liberal Criticism

The ruling has drawn sharp reactions along political lines, with conservatives celebrating the decision as a victory against what they view as federal overreach. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling, seeing it as a protection of states’ rights and traditional values in workplace policies. The decision aligns with other recent federal court rulings that have limited the scope of Biden administration regulations on gender identity issues.

“The federal government has no right to force Texans to play along with delusions or ignore biological reality in our workplaces.”, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said.

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts framed the decision as both a legal and cultural victory. Progressive groups, however, criticized the ruling as contradicting Supreme Court precedent. The National Women’s Law Center expressed concern that the decision undermines established protections for LGBTQ+ workers and creates confusion about their rights in the workplace. Legal experts note that this is just one judicial interpretation and does not necessarily reflect the full scope of LGBTQ+ rights under federal and state law.

Implications for Workplace Protections

The ruling comes at a time when the EEOC itself is in transition. Acting Chair Andrea Lucas opposed the harassment guidelines from the outset, and the agency has reportedly shifted focus away from gender identity discrimination cases. With the potential confirmation of Brittany Panuccio, the EEOC could regain a Republican majority, possibly signaling further policy shifts on LGBTQ+ workplace protections.

“This ruling is more than a legal victory. It’s a cultural one. It says no — you don’t have to surrender common sense at the altar of leftist ideology. You don’t have to pretend men are women.”, said Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts.

Despite the ruling, employment attorneys advise businesses to continue addressing gender identity conflicts in the workplace carefully. The EEOC reported over 3,000 discrimination charges based on sexual orientation or gender identity in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, highlighting the ongoing prevalence of these issues. Judge Kacsmaryk’s narrow interpretation of Bostock focuses specifically on not firing workers for being gay or transgender, potentially leaving gaps in protection against other forms of discrimination and harassment.