US Civil Rights Agency Rules Against Transgender Army Worker in Bathroom Case
A significant ruling from a United States civil rights agency has determined that federal government employers can legally prohibit transgender employees from using bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity. This decision dismisses an appeal filed by a transgender woman who worked as a civilian IT specialist for the U.S. Army at Fort Riley in Kansas.
Details of the Case and EEOC Decision
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reached a 2-1 decision on Thursday, ruling against the employee who had requested access to women's facilities after informing her managers of her gender identity in the summer of 2025. The Army had previously declined her request and dismissed her internal complaint, leading to this appeal to the EEOC.
In its opinion, the EEOC repeatedly referred to the employee as a man, despite her identification as a woman. The commission cited a key executive order from former President Donald Trump that mandates the federal government recognize only two immutable sexes: male and female. This reasoning formed the basis for determining that the Army's actions did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and national origin.
Shift from Previous EEOC Stance
This ruling represents a notable departure from the EEOC's landmark finding a decade ago, which concluded that another transgender Army employee had faced discrimination when denied use of preferred pronouns and gender-appropriate bathrooms. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has actively implemented Trump-era policies concerning gender identity, including dropping lawsuits on behalf of transgender and nonbinary workers and revising harassment guidelines to exclude protections against misgendering or bathroom restrictions.
Lucas defended the decision, stating: "Today's opinion is consistent with the plain meaning of 'sex' as understood by Congress when Title VII was enacted. Similarly situated employees must be treated equally. Biology is not bigotry." The EEOC argued that interpreting Title VII to allow transgender employees into bathrooms of their gender identity would effectively eliminate single-sex facilities, creating mixed-sex environments for all employees.
Dissenting Opinion and Broader Implications
The sole Democratic commissioner, Kalpana Kotagal, issued a strong dissent, posting on LinkedIn: "I strongly disagree with the decision's substance and tone. It rests on the false premise that transgender workers are not worthy of protection from discrimination and suggests transgender people do not exist." Kotagal referenced the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which affirmed Title VII protections for transgender workers against employment discrimination, though the EEOC maintained that decision did not address bathroom access specifically.
This EEOC decision applies universally to all federal agencies but does not extend to private employers or establish binding precedent for U.S. courts. The affected Army employee retains the right to request reconsideration within 30 days or file a new case in federal district court within 90 days.
Reactions and Scientific Context
The ruling has drawn polarized responses. Many Republican lawmakers have praised the decision as correcting previous overreach on gender identity issues, while civil rights groups including the Human Rights Campaign and National Women's Law Center have condemned it. Representative Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, criticized EEOC Chair Lucas for "undermining enforcement of minority workers' rights."
Scientific perspectives add complexity to the debate. The American Medical Association and other mainstream medical groups recognize sex and gender as existing on a spectrum rather than as binary categories. Some biologists have criticized Trump's executive order as scientifically unsound for ignoring intersex variations, though the EEOC addressed this in a footnote stating intersex cases present "rare and unique circumstances" for individual evaluation.
The EEOC's reasoning included safety concerns, echoing Lucas's longstanding position that allowing transgender women into women's facilities could endanger privacy expectations. This perspective contrasts with growing recognition of transgender rights in various jurisdictions and ongoing legal challenges to similar policies affecting federal employees.
