The Bible reveals that God ordained government as his servant for our good (Romans 13:1-4). The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in large part due to the gospel-centered efforts of Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr., illustrates the role of government in protecting people through good laws.
Title VII and the Biological Definition of Sex
To that end, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on a person’s sex. The definition of “sex” in Title VII simply states that discrimination because of sex includes but is not limited to “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” What this simple definition does not say is telling and acknowledges the traditional and historical understanding of “sex” based on biology. Since its enactment, progressive advocacy groups have lobbied Congress to amend Title VII to add protection for sexual orientation and gender identity under the definition of sex, but Congress has rejected those efforts to amend the statute.
However, the Biden administration had other ideas. In 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that investigates violations of Title VII, issued new enforcement guidance that expanded the definition of sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The new EEOC guidance illustrates the significance of this change. For example, the guidance states that instructing a biological male employee that he cannot wear a women’s dress to work is now “harassing conduct” under their new definition of sex. The guidance also states that denying a man who identifies as a woman access to the women’s bathroom can constitute harassment under their new definition of sex.
Court Rejects EEOC Overreach, Affirms Legal Tradition
Thankfully, a number of employer groups challenged the new EEOC guidance in federal court, and the judge in that case recently ruled that the new guidance is contrary to law and beyond the authority of the EEOC. As a result, the judge officially vacated those aspects of the new guidance dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity. Thus, the EEOC’s effort to redefine sex has no force or effect.
Importantly, in vacating the guidance, the judge acknowledged the tradition and history of our laws by affirming that Title VII “remains rooted in a biological understanding of sex.” While Lady Justice may be blind to some things, the judge noted that the law is not blind to the differences between men and women. Quoting a recent Supreme Court decision (Bostock), the judge noted that “sex” under Title VII refers “only to biological distinctions between male and female” and does not, as the guidance suggested, include transgender preferences related to pronouns, dress, and bathrooms. As the Judge concluded, “in sum, Title VII does not bar workplace employment practices that protect the inherent differences between men and women.”
This case represents yet another welcome course correction, upholding the history and tradition of our law to protect women in the workplace. And once again, this case demonstrates the importance of those who are willing to show up, stand up, and speak up for justice!