Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EEOC NEWS—Agency moves to dismiss its own cases, brought on behalf of transgender and gender nonconforming workers, (Feb 18, 2025)
Organizations Mentioned:Office of Personnel Management
By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.
On Valentine’s Day, the agency responsible for enforcing federal antidiscrimination law filed motions with several courts seeking dismissal of lawsuits brought under the previous presidential administration.
On Friday, February 14, 2025, the EEOC, the agency charged with enforcement of federal antidiscrimination law, sought dismissal of at least a half dozen lawsuits previously brought on behalf of workers who experienced sex-based discrimination stemming from their status as transgender or gender nonconforming.
“Inconsistent” with EO and guidance. Each motion included language identical to or substantially like the following:
“In support of this motion, the EEOC states the following:
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” (“the Order”).
On January 29, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management issued “Initial Guidance Regarding President Trump’s Executive Order Defending Women” directing that all federal employees must comply with and take actions to effectuate the Order, (“OPM Guidance”).
The EEOC’s continued litigation of the claim in this action may be inconsistent with the Order and the OPM Guidance.”
In EEOC v. Boxwood Hotels, LLC d/b/a Holiday Inn Express, filed in the Western District of New York in September, the agency had sued on behalf of a transgender housekeeper who complained of being fired after complaining of repeated misgendering and anti-transgender statements made by a supervisor, including being referred to as “it” and “transformer.” In the “unopposed” motion to dismiss its own complaint, the EEOC references Trump’s executive order and the OPM guidance, stating that its “continued litigation of its claims in this action may be inconsistent with the Order and OPM Guidance.”
The case is No. 1:24-cv-00902-LVJ.
In EEOC v. Sis-Bro Inc., filed in the Southern District of Illinois in April 2024, the agency had sued on behalf of a hog farm employee who was forced to quit after undergoing frequent, derogatory comments about her gender identity, who was misgendered, and who was harassed for her use of employer-provided health insurance and leave for gender-affirming care. In this case, the EEOC’s lawsuit had already survived a motion to dismiss by the employer. In the EEOC’s motion to dismiss, the agency cites the same reasons as provided in the other motions filed with the other courts.
The case is No. 3:24-cv-00968-JPG.
In EEOC v. Lush Handmade Cosmetics, LLC, filed in the Northern District of California in the fall of 2024, the agency had sued on behalf of LGBTQ+ employees at a California Lush location who claimed they were subjected to offensive physical and verbal sexual conduct and that the employer failed to adequately investigate, leading at least two employees to quit. In its stipulation to stay pending deadlines and dismiss with prejudice, filed along with the employer, the agency again cited the EO and guidance.
The case is No. 5:24-cv-06859.
In EEOC v. Reggio’s Pizza, Inc., filed in the Northern District of Illinois in September 2024, the agency sued on behalf of an employee alleging that Chicago employer Reggio’s Pizza fired an employee after she reported that a manager had outed her to other employees, causing them to misgender her and prompting a customer to make an offensive comment using both an LGBTQ+ slur and a racial slur. The agency cited the same reasons for moving to dismiss this litigation, but also noted that in this matter, at least, the employee had informed it that she had retained her own counsel and intended to intervene.
The case is No. 1:24-cv-08910.
In EEOC v. Starboard with Cheese, LLC, filed in the Southern District of Illinois last fall, the agency sued on behalf of a class of transgender employees at a Wendy’s location in Carbondale, alleging they had been subjected to pervasive sexual harassment, including misgendering, graphic sexual comments, unequal access to bathrooms, intrusive questions, and degrading conduct based on gender identity. The workers in that case claimed that supervisors inquired about their genitalia and forbade them from using restrooms consistent with their gender identity. Coworkers also referred to them as “it” and misgendered them even after being corrected. The agency cited the same reasons for moving to dismiss this litigation.
The case is No. 3:24-cv-02260-NJR.
In EEOC v. Harmony Hospitality, LLC, filed in the Middle District of Alabama in June 2024, the agency had sued on behalf of a night auditor, who identifies as a nonbinary male and is gay, who was fired by the hotel where he worked after management saw him for the first time dressed and styled in a way they perceived to be feminine and that differed from their preferred appearance for male employees. In a joint motion to dismiss this litigation, filed along with the employer, the agency provided the same reasons for dismissal.
The case is No. 1:24-cv-00357-CWB.
News: AgencyNews WhiteHouseNews LitigationNewsTrends Discrimination SexDiscrimination