Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti led a group of 19 other state attorneys general in filing a public comment letter in opposition to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) “Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.”
The EEOC’s proposal would broaden Title VII’s prohibition of “sex-based harassment” to include, among other things, “intentional and repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity (misgendering)” and “the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.”
The EEOC’s enforcement proposal, according to Skrmetti’s office, “threatens the First Amendment rights of employers, employees and even customers in Tennessee and across America, and it shortchanges the long-recognized privacy and safety justifications for sex-segregated spaces like restrooms and changing facilities ‑ among other legal concerns.”
The attorneys general recommended the EEOC “make appropriate changes to avoid once more imposing unlawful gender-identity rules,” or else the coalition said it will be “prepared to pursue appropriate legal action to protect their interests, affected employers, and the democratic process.”
“The EEOC has once again proposed enforcement guidance that extends beyond its statutory authority and threatens the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans,” Skrmetti said in a statement. “Tennessee has successfully challenged EEOC’s unlawful guidance in the past and stands ready to do so again.”
Another group that filed a comment letter in opposition to the EEOC’s proposal was the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which argued the proposed guidance of broadening Title VII’s prohibition of “sex-based harassment” is “not only content-based but viewpoint-based because it prohibits speech on one side of the issue but not the other.”
“Title VII cannot reasonably be read to prescribe, or to give the Commission the authority to prescribe, nationwide rules barring employers from maintaining sex-specific workplace restrooms and dressing areas as to all employees,” the USCCB added in its comment letter.
– – –
Kaitlin Housler is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. Follow Kaitlin on X / Twitter.
I would think, given the original and still documented meaning of the word “harassment”, that we need a law simply to recognize that demanding and requiring others to use incorrect, wrongful. deceitful words and descriptions to characterize individuals as something they are not is itself the harassment they seek to redefine in their favor. Not just harassment but fraud, against individuals, businesses, and governemt organizations. In other words, criminal . . .
My preferred pronouns are “sir” and “mister”. Would that get me into trouble these days?