Ken Paxton sues Biden administration for including misgendering someone...

[Jessica_Rose]

Ken Paxton sues Biden administration for including misgendering someone as workplace harassment


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ken-paxton-sues-biden-administration-for-including-misgendering-someone-as-workplace-harassment/ar-AA1oW98G?ocid=windirect&cvid=6fa6ea8da60b43d1b20e9488dd867a88&ei=28

Story by Elaine Mallon, Washington Examiner (16 Aug 2024)

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed his second lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department over the EEOC granting protections to transgender people in the workplace.

Paxton, a Republican, filed his lawsuit on Thursday, arguing the agency's guidelines clarifying what constitutes harassment include not allowing an employee to use the bathroom that aligns with their chosen gender identity or calling an employee by pronouns that don't align with their gender identity. Employers also could not reprimand an employee for dressing in attire that aligns with their chosen gender expression. These acts would be considered unlawful in the workplace.

"EEOC claims that the Pronoun Accommodation, the Bathroom Accommodation, and the Dress Code Accommodation are not accommodations, but instead result from Title VII's prohibition of sexual harassment in the workplace," the lawsuit states. "That is completely wrong. An employee's statutory right to be free from sexual harassment is not an "accommodation" to certain employees, such that some employees may be harassed, and others may not."
In addition, Paxton, who filed with the Heritage Foundation, said the agency "purports to preempt the State's sovereign power to enact and abide by its workplace policies."

[Lori Dee]

I saw a biased version of this story in The Hill.

I found this statement to be interesting:

The EEOC guidelines, which are not legally binding, state that denying employees accommodations based on their gender identity —

If the guidelines are "not legally binding" they cannot be enforced, so why do we need lawsuits to challenge them? Even if the lawsuits are successful and the guidelines are changed, the resulting changes are "not legally binding" either.

It is a lot of political posturing, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and energy by government officials who could (and should) be directing their efforts toward problems that are "legally binding".

[Sephirah]

What's the point of doing anything if it's not legally binding? If something can't be enforced, why even bother saying anything at all other than to score points on some imaginary leaderboard.

It is a lot of political posturing, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and energy by government officials who could (and should) be directing their efforts toward problems that are "legally binding".

This. Either do it or don't. Don't make suggestions that mean nothing. If you do, prepare to stand behind what you do. And if you don't... just don't.

One Britishism for it is... "S**t or get off the toilet."