Thanks To Neil Gorsuch, The Biden Administration Is Forcing Employers Everywhere To End Free Speech And Put Men In Women’s Bathrooms

As a labor and employment attorney, I have handled cases before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for almost two decades. This is probably how I got invited to the EEOC-sponsored event, “AANHPI + Pride: Intersecting Identities at Work and Beyond.”

For the uninitiated, AANHPI stands for “Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders.” And yes, the presenters repeated the alphabet string “AAHNPI LGBTQIA+ community” many, many times.

White House appointee Erika Moritsugu kicked off the presentation by boasting that 14 percent of Biden’s appointees are LGBT. She also touted President Biden’s executive orders on “equity,” which blatantly pander to identity groups based on race and sexual self-identification, using purposefully vague language to enable maximum federal power and involvement.

EEOC Vice Chair Jocelyn Samuels spoke as well, and committed the EEOC to expanding its outreach, education, investigation, and litigation efforts, particularly toward a “robust implementation of the Bostock decision.”

Using Bostock to Tyrannize Language and Privacy

Last year, in the case Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court expanded Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to prohibit distinctions based on sexual orientation and gender identity. New EEOC guidance uses Bostock to force companies to open bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers to employees based on the sex they profess to be. The EEOC also interprets Bostock to mean calling transgender employees by their sex-accurate name and pronouns can constitute unlawful harassment.

In plain language, employers can no longer exclude men from women’s private areas. Employers must also police the use of pronouns by employees, disciplining dissenters in some cases. Further, the EEOC urges employees to file complaints so the full power of federal enforcement and private litigation will come down on any employer who doesn’t comply. (Thanks for enabling this bureaucratic harassment in Bostock, Justice Neil Gorsuch!)

Meanwhile, the presentation continued its descent into madness, condemning state laws that exclude men from women’s sports (calling them “bullying disguised as legislation”). One panelist, an EEOC attorney, claimed such bills must be motivated by misogyny, because they focus on trans women (biological men) instead of trans men (biological women). Despite an Ivy League education, this panelist somehow missed the fact that women (whatever sex they say they are) pose zero threat to men’s sports.

Unable to let such blatant science denial pass, I asked a question in the chat box. “What do you suggest as a solution to the women’s sports / trans athlete conundrum?” I asked, trying to use the lingo. “Specifically the physical advantages of trans women over cis women. How would you resolve?”