The Biden administration seeks to force transgender orthodoxy on ordinary Americans via its Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC aims to weaponize a federal law prohibiting harassment on the basis of sex in the workplace by forbidding employers to believe that biological sex can not be altered due to one’s self-identification, according to a report by the Daily Signal.
The federal agency published a proposed rule for workplace harassment Monday, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which states, “sex-based discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
“Accordingly, sex-based harassment includes harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, including how that identity is expressed,” the EEOC claimed:
Examples include epithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity; physical assault; harassment because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s gender; intentional and repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.
The EEOC then offered an example of how this would work in practice:
Jennifer, a cashier at a fast food restaurant who identifies as female, alleges that supervisors, coworkers, and customers regularly and intentionally misgender her. One of her supervisors, Allison, frequently uses Jennifer’s prior male name, male pronouns, and “dude” when referring to Jennifer, despite Jennifer’s request for Allison to use her correct name and pronouns; other managers also intentionally refer to Jennifer as “he.”
Coworkers have asked Jennifer questions about her sexual orientation and anatomy and asserted that she was not female. Customers also have intentionally misgendered Jennifer and made threatening statements to her, but her supervisors did not address the harassment and instead reassigned her to duties outside of the view of customers. Based on these facts, Jennifer has alleged harassment based on her gender identity.
The proposed rule adds that business owners must shield their employees from “religiously motivated” harassment.
“Employers are not required to accommodate religious expression that creates, or reasonably threatens to create, a hostile work environment,” it states. “As with other forms of harassment, an employer should take corrective action before the conduct becomes sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.”
A new poll, however, shows that most voters, 69 percent, say that “using the wrong pronoun for someone’s gender should not be illegal.”
Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that employers cannot compel employees to endorse speech with which they disagree.
Last year, for example, Shawnee State University was ordered to pay $400,000 in damages and attorney fees after punishing a professor who refused to refer to a male student as a female. The settlement came after a judge previously ruled that the university’s treatment of the professor violated his First Amendment rights.
Last year, a federal judge stopped the EEOC from implementing a “guidance” document urging Americans to file complaints against employers who did not adhere to transgender orthodoxy, including acts of so-called “misgendering.”