In a controversial decision, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted to overturn a decade-old ruling that had recognized denying transgender federal employees access to restrooms aligned with their gender identity as unlawful discrimination.
The 2-1 vote reverses part of the precedent established in Lusardi v. Department of the Army, a 2015 federal sector appellate decision that concluded restricting restroom access based on transgender status violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That decision had been widely cited as a foundational protection for transgender federal workers.
Under the new ruling, the EEOC determined that Title VII does not require federal agencies to permit transgender employees to use restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. Agencies may maintain sex-segregated facilities defined by biological sex at birth without automatically violating federal anti-discrimination law, according to the majority opinion.
The decision applies specifically to federal sector employment and does not directly change enforcement standards for private employers. However, civil rights advocates warn the ruling could influence broader interpretations of workplace protections nationwide.
The Human Rights Campaign condemned the move, calling it a dangerous rollback of civil rights protections. In a public statement, the organization said the ruling effectively allows anti-transgender discrimination within federal workplaces and undermines longstanding interpretations of sex discrimination law.
Advocates point to the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that firing someone for being transgender constitutes discrimination based on sex under Title VII. Civil rights groups argue that restroom access consistent with gender identity logically follows from that ruling, since exclusion from workplace facilities can create unequal working conditions.
Supporters of the EEOC’s reversal contend the agency is aligning its interpretation more narrowly with statutory language and recent judicial scrutiny of federal guidance on gender identity. Critics counter that the decision ignores the practical realities faced by transgender employees and opens the door to workplace policies that isolate or stigmatize them.
For transgender federal employees, the ruling introduces immediate uncertainty. Agencies now have broader discretion in how they structure restroom policies, potentially leading to inconsistent standards across departments and workplaces.
Legal challenges are expected. Advocacy organizations have indicated they are exploring avenues to contest the ruling and reinforce protections through litigation or congressional action.
The decision marks a significant shift in how federal workplace discrimination law is being interpreted and signals that debates over transgender rights in employment remain far from settled.
