Texas Judge Rules LGBTQ+ Protections Under Title VII Must Be Removed

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a decision that strips LGBTQ+ individuals of key workplace protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The decision directly contradicts the 2020 Supreme Court ruling set in Bostock v. Clayton County, which recognized that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity constituted sex-based discrimination. Judge Kacsmaryk, known for his far-right affiliations and previous controversial decisions, declared that Title VII no longer safeguards LGBTQ+ employees from workplace harassment or policy-based discrimination.

According to his interpretation, the law only protects against termination “simply for being homosexual or transgender,” not against broader discriminatory practices like denial of restroom access or forced gender-based dress codes.

The lawsuit was filed by the state of Texas in partnership with the conservative Heritage Foundation. They challenged the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s 2024 guidance, which includes LGBTQ+ people under sex-based protections.

Kacsmaryk pointed to policies from the Texas Department of Agriculture, which mandates that employees dress according to their “biological gender.” Men are instructed to wear pants, while women may wear dresses, skirts, or pants. Transgender employees are prohibited from using restrooms that align with their gender identity, a policy the judge upheld in full.

In his verdict, Kacsmaryk argued that these procedures are not discriminatory because they apply “equally” to all employees based on their designated gender at birth. He compared the implementation of such laws to the old legal theory used to support same-sex marriage prohibitions, which disguised exclusion as equality.

Kacsmaryk ordered the EEOC to remove all language referring to sexual orientation and gender identity as protected under Title VII. Specifically, Section II(A)(5)(c) of the EEOC’s 2024 guidance defining sex-based discrimination to include LGBTQ+ identities was nullified.

His view defies the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which upheld LGBTQ+ protections. That case focused on Gerald Bostock and Aimee Stephens, two employees who were fired solely for being gay or transgender, and established that such firings were sex discrimination.

While Bostock focuses on termination, legal experts generally believe that the ramifications extend to harassment and other discriminatory employment rules. Kacsmaryk’s decision ignores this broader context, creating a risky loophole for employers.

This ruling is part of a broader trend in Judge Kacsmaryk’s legal history. He previously attempted to overturn FDA approval of mifepristone, ruled against LGBTQ+ protections under the Affordable Care Act, and even tried to impose a $2 billion penalty on Planned Parenthood an action later struck down.

Judge Kacsmaryk has now laid the stage for a new court struggle over Title VII by undermining one of the most important civil rights legislation in American history. The implications are serious for LGBTQ+ workers across America, who may now face increasing discrimination and fewer legal options.