On Monday, 18 states sued the Biden administration, alleging that it is improperly imposing pro-transgender laws on businesses and their employees.
Attorneys general from 18 states, including Tennessee, sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) and the Department of Justice, alleging that the government is attempting to “enshrine sweeping gender-identity mandates without congressional consent.”
The petition laments the EEOC’s” Enforcement Document,” which states that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act “requires all filled employers and employees to use others ‘ preferred pronouns, help transgender people to use the rain, locker room, or room to correspond to their gender identity, and desist from requiring people to adhere to the dress code that corresponds to their natural sex.”
In addition to Tennessee, the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.
” In America, the Constitution gives the power to make laws to the people’s elected representatives, not to unaccountable commissioners, and this EEOC guidance is an attack on our constitutional separation of powers”, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said.
” When, as here, a federal agency engages in government over the people instead of government by the people, it undermines the legitimacy of our laws and alienates Americans from our legal system” , , Skrmetti continued.
The , Tennessee attorney general added,” This end- run , around our constitutional institutions misuses federal power to eliminate women’s private spaces and punish the use of biologically- accurate pronouns, all at the expense of Tennessee employers”.
The EEOC expanded Title VII’s protections against sex-based discrimination to include gender identity with new harassment-related guidelines released.
Under the federal agency’s new rules, an employer may be liable under if they, other employees, or even customers, use a name or pronoun that a transgender individual disagrees with.
The EEOC’s new guidance could also hold an employer accountable if it blocks access to a restroom or other sex-segregated facilities for people who claim to be the other biological sex.
Notably, the agency’s guidelines cite , a 2020 Supreme Court ruling, Bostock v. Clayton County.
However, the 18 states contend that the Supreme Court did not intend for employers to be required to adhere to regulations governing employees ‘ gender identity and sexual orientation.
“EEOC relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U. S. 644 ( 2020 ), to prescribe broad swaths of employer conduct. But Bostock was a narrow decision”, the lawsuit states.
The Court stated that Title VII only applies to terminating an employee “because of… sex” and not “merely for being homosexual or transgender.” Bostock“, the suit adds. ” The , Court expressly declined to ‘ prejudge’ issues like ‘ bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes’ under Title VII’s anti- discrimination provision”.
The lawsuit asserts that “neither Title VII, nor Bostock, nor any other federal precedent gives EEOC license to impose a gender-identity accommodation mandate, which flunks major-question scrutiny and raises constitutional concerns.”
You can , follow Alana , Mastrangelo on , Facebook , and X at , @ARmastrangelo, and on , Instagram.
