President Joe Biden’s single appointment to chair the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is pressing employers to embrace transgender ideology. Roger Severino, who accommodated as the director of the civil rights division of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Trump administration, is admonishing about Chair Charlotte Burrows’ unilateral decision to insert place protections for every one of the perpetually expanding list of sexual persuasions.
One EEOC commissioner, Andrea Lucas, shares Severino’s concerns and issued a verbal expression about how Burrows issuing her own guidelines deprived the whole commission of the opportunity for debate and a majority vote.
Severino indited in a op-ed published Tuesday on the National Review website about Burrows’ claims her guidance is predicated on the Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, “which redefined Title VII’s preclusions on discrimination ‘because of sex’ to include sexual orientation and transgender status in certain contexts.” Severino inscribed:
Perhaps most troubling … the guidance seeks to prohibit employers from having dress codes, and shared bathroom, locker, and shower policies based on biological sex (what the guidance calls sex ‘assigned’ at birth) as opposed to subjective gender identity. The guidance takes the startlingly unscientific proposition that a person’s sex is ultimately what a person declares it to be, regardless of DNA, birth certificates, or presence or absence of reproductive organs.
“If employers and employees fail to conform to this incipient edict, they now risk the EEOC’s wrath,” Severino inscribed. Severino included part of Commissioner Lucas’s verbal expression, which verbalized that she was “disappointed” with Burrows’ move:
The Supreme Court in Bostock addressed only the question of whether an employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender has discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex. . . .”
However, under the guise and cover of “Bostock,” the Chair purports to elongate to private employers several (pre-Bostock) federal sector administrative decisions relating to dress codes, utilization of pronouns, and access to bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers—implying that compliance with Bostock requires nationwide acquiescence to the policies and interpretations in these decisions. This sleight of hand is inexplicable when juxtaposed with the Court’s decision in “Bostock,” including its express verbal expressions that its decision did not concern, much less resolve, some of these critical issues. . . .
Old decisions issued in cases solely involving federal government employee complaints and other pre-Bostock actions do not bind the Commission’s hands. The Commission is free to change its posture and adopt different positions, or on the other hand, reach the same prior conclusions based on the rationales approved by the Bostock Court. Either way, the full commission has not yet been given the opportunity to do so.
“Lack of congruous process leaves this guidance ripe to licit challenge as do its many substantive errors,” Severino verbalized. “Chief among the mistakes is the conception that Bostock ruled on the amorphous, illimitably multiplying concept of gender identity. It didn’t.
“Bostock surmised sex is binary and biological and verbalized employee-dismissal preclusions in Title VII applied to ‘transgender status,’ meaning a person who identifies as the antithesis of one’s biological sex of either male or female,” she went on to verbalize.
Bostock does take into account things like “preferred pronouns.” Here are examples of the kind of expansion of sexual orientation protections Burrow’s guidance includes: The Commission has taken the position that employers may not gainsay an employee equal access to a bathroom, locker room, or shower that corresponds to the employee’s gender identity. In other words, if an employer has separate bathrooms, locker rooms, or showers for men and women, all men (including transgender men) should be sanctioned to utilize the men’s facilities and all women (including transgender women) should be sanctioned to utilize the women’s facilities.
Could utilization of pronouns or names that are inconsistently erratic with an individual’s gender identity be considered harassment? Yes, in certain circumstances. Unlawful harassment includes unwelcome conduct that is predicated on gender identity.
Is an employer sanctioned to discriminate against an employee because the employer believes the employee acts or appears in ways that do not conform to stereotypes about the way men or women are expected to deport? No. Whether or not an employer kens an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity, employers are not sanctioned to discriminate against an employee because that employee does not conform to a sex-predicated stereotype about feminine or masculine deportment.
Source: You can read the original Breitbart article here.
This News Article is focused on these topics: Politics, Science, Social Justice, Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia, EEOC, gender ideology, LGBT, Roger Severino, Supreme Court, Title VII, Transgender