Here&#8217;s a statistic that, if you have a job in corporate America, may be the single least surprising piece of information you&#8217;ll hear all year.
It turns out that every single one of the Fortune 100 companies — 100% of them — has made a public <a href="https://www.hrdive.com/news/2022-fortune-companies-dei/627651/">commitment</a> to DEI on their website. There isn&#8217;t a single outlier in the top 100 companies in this country. Chris Rufo looked into this, and he found that they all have a stock DEI page. Whether you go to Amazon or Target or Dell or Verizon or Home Depot, or banks or insurance companies or anywhere else, you&#8217;ll find the same platitudes — boilerplate about the importance of the alphabet people, parental leave for birthing folks, outreach to historically black colleges, and so on.
This total uniformity took hold relatively quickly, within just the last few years. Publicly, the explanation for this change is that all of these companies are suddenly very concerned about racial justice. They&#8217;re upset about George Floyd and so on. But privately, there&#8217;s another very clear reason for it. The leadership of all of these companies understand very well that if they stop practicing DEI — if they, say, start hiring all of their employees based on merit instead of skin color — then the federal government will try to destroy them.
This is a dynamic that normally plays out behind the scenes, away from public scrutiny. But this week, in one very dramatic case, it spilled out into the open. The convenience store chain Sheetz, which has more than 700 locations all over the country, was just sued by the Biden administration after they rejected the federal government&#8217;s attempt to shake them down with a settlement. What was Sheetz&#8217;s crime, you ask? Did they sell bad gasoline? Poisoned hot dogs? Did their name violate communications decency laws?
According to the Biden administration, Sheetz broke the law by refusing to hire applicants who failed a criminal background check. Apparently, the Biden administration believes this is a racist policy because many of the people who fail these background checks are nonwhite. And to be clear, that&#8217;s the entire accusation. The Biden administration is not claiming that Sheetz intentionally discriminated against anyone on the basis of race, or any other legally protected characteristic. They&#8217;re not claiming that Sheetz used these background checks as part of a racist white supremacist scheme.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1352-biden-administration-declares-that-criminal-background-checks-are-racist-against-black-people-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
Instead, the Biden administration is using a theory of discrimination known as &#8220;disparate impact,&#8221; which was enshrined into civil rights law many years ago. Under this theory, a lack of discriminatory intent doesn&#8217;t matter. All the government has to show is that a policy disproportionately affects members of certain racial groups, without a clear business purpose, in a manner that could reasonably be avoided.
In a moment, I&#8217;ll get into the lawsuit, and I&#8217;ll explain why it&#8217;s a complete farce, even if you buy into the whole &#8220;disparate impact&#8221; theory.
First, however, I want to contrast two local news reports about what&#8217;s happening to Sheetz. The first one is from WCNC in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the second one is from CBS 17 in Durham. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Sheetz Lawsuit" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OMATs4CZbSg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You&#8217;ll notice that the CBS News report doesn&#8217;t even mention what Sheetz is accused of doing, really. They don&#8217;t talk about the background checks at all. They just lead you to believe that Sheetz is accused of discriminating against &#8220;black, Native American and multiracial&#8221; people, with no context whatsoever.
So maybe you&#8217;re starting to see how the shakedown works. The federal government shows up to a major corporation. They accuse them of racism based on no evidence whatsoever. And then they demand millions of dollars, including back pay for a bunch of employees. And if the company doesn&#8217;t comply, then the administration sues them, and the media basically accuses the company of racism. This is why many companies choose to head off the whole problem in the first place, by openly discriminating against white people. If you do that, then the Biden administration won&#8217;t touch you.
Let&#8217;s get into the specifics of the case because that&#8217;s the only way to truly understand how insane this is.
Within the last few months, a couple of job applicants at Sheetz filed complaints with the E.E.O.C., saying they&#8217;ve been discriminated against under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And the E.E.O.C., which is a federal agency, agreed with them. Here&#8217;s what the Biden administration wrote in their lawsuit:
<blockquote>[Sheetz] committed a continuing, companywide practice in violation of Title VII with respect to a class of Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiracial job applicants who did not pass [Sheetz&#8217;s] criminal justice history screening by failing to hire them for all positions because of race. &#8230; For instance, Black job applicants have failed Defendants’ criminal justice history screening, and consequently are denied employment, at a rate exceeding approximately 14.5%, while White job applicants have failed Defendants’ criminal justice history screening, and consequently are denied employment, at a rate of under approximately 8%.</blockquote>
The complaint notes that the number of Indians and multiracial applicants who are denied on this basis is roughly the same.
A few points here. First, given what we know about black crime rates, these numbers are actually a lot closer than you&#8217;d expect. Nationally, according to FBI data, black people <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/liberty-matters/2024-02-13-systemic-racism-in-crime-do-blacks-commit-more-crimes-than-whites" target="_blank" rel="noopener">make up</a> more than 26% of total arrests, and the imprisonment rate for black Americans is over five times the rate for whites. But the Sheetz data only shows a disparity of around 7%. And according to the EEOC, Sheetz is looking at both convictions as well as arrests when it runs its background checks.
More importantly, notice what&#8217;s being conflated here. The complaint states that Sheetz is failing to hire these applicants &#8220;because of race.&#8221; But what they&#8217;re really saying is that Sheetz isn&#8217;t hiring applicants who failed a criminal background check. Any reasonable person can see that those are two very different rationales. And indeed, on its website, the E.E.O.C. makes this distinction clear. <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-sheetz-inc-racially-discriminatory-hiring-practice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">They state:</a>
<blockquote>The lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz was motivated by race when making hiring decisions.</blockquote>
This is the sort of madness that the legal theory of &#8220;disparate impact&#8221; breeds. The Left knows that it can&#8217;t find any examples of actual direct discrimination against black people in this country anymore — and certainly not at Sheetz. So instead, the Left has invented this notion of disparate impact to create discrimination where it doesn&#8217;t really exist. The problem is that literally everything — every policy, every rule, every standard, in every context — will have a &#8220;disparate impact.&#8221; The impact felt by any individual or group will vary according to their situation. If we cannot have standards that create a disparate impact, then we cannot have any standards at all. Which of course is the point.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
Supposedly, there are limits to this legal theory of &#8220;disparate impact.&#8221; The DOJ lists these <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7#C" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exceptions</a> on its website. For example, it&#8217;s acceptable to have a policy that yields a &#8220;disparate impact&#8221; — if the policy is &#8220;important&#8221; and justified by the organization&#8217;s mission. This is an exception that clearly applies to this situation. There is a blindingly obvious reason why a convenience store wouldn&#8217;t want to hire criminals: They don&#8217;t want to get robbed. This is a point that should not need any elaboration whatsoever in a sane society.
But we don&#8217;t live in a sane society anymore, so I will elaborate. Also, it&#8217;s an excuse to show one of the best videos to come out of Georgia this year. This is footage of a robbery at a convenience store that may be the single worst inside job ever recorded on camera. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Gas Station Clerk Robbed" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lUUAZx374-c?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;It&#8217;s unclear if the robber&#8217;s fist actually connected to Patel&#8217;s face.&#8221; That&#8217;s the polite way of putting it. It takes the cops a little while but they eventually blew the whole scheme wide open — mainly because the accomplice was hanging out right outside the store when they arrived, and cash started falling out of his pocket when they questioned him.
In any event, the point is that if this clerk applies to Sheetz, they should be able to reject him because of his criminal history. His ethnicity does not matter. The fact he&#8217;s a criminal matters. Convenience stores get robbed all the time — including by their own employees. It&#8217;s clearly &#8220;important&#8221; to the business of a convenience store to root out criminals.
I read the entire complaint from the Biden administration, and I couldn&#8217;t find a single argument to the contrary. Instead, they fault Sheetz for failing to contact applicants to request additional information after they fail their criminal background checks. The Biden administration doesn&#8217;t say what &#8220;additional information&#8221; might be relevant, but they say that Sheetz is racist because they don&#8217;t request it. Additionally, the Biden administration faults Sheetz for failing to name the &#8220;specific condition&#8221; that&#8217;s the basis for their decision, when applicants have multiple criminal convictions. And apparently, Sheetz doesn&#8217;t have a whole committee making these decisions, nor is there a &#8220;procedure&#8221; for appeals.
None of this is remotely relevant to racism, nor does it disprove the obvious fact that hiring criminals is a bad idea for a convenience store. So it doesn&#8217;t really address the relevant legal issues in any way.
You get the sense that Sheetz was stunned by the Biden administration&#8217;s claims to the contrary. The federal government&#8217;s complaint goes on to state that:
<blockquote>The Commission engaged in communications with Defendants to provide Defendants an opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices. &#8230; [but] the Commission was unable to secure from Defendants a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission.</blockquote>
In other words, Sheetz didn&#8217;t back down in the face of this blackmail. So now they have a massive lawsuit to deal with, along with defamatory media coverage. 
Obviously, this is one of the more egregious examples you&#8217;ll ever see of the soft bigotry of low expectations — or the soft bigotry of no expectations, in this case. If I were black, I would be highly insulted by the idea that a criminal background check presents some kind of insurmountable hurdle for me specifically. It&#8217;s a lot like saying black people can&#8217;t possibly obtain voter identification, which is another common claim you&#8217;ll hear from the Biden administration. What the Left is effectively saying is that there&#8217;s simply no chance for black, Indian, or &#8220;multiracial&#8221; job applicants to stop committing a disproportionate amount of crimes. 
So, instead of doing anything to get them to commit less crime, we have to pretend that business owners are the real criminals. If they refuse to hire nonwhite applicants for any reason, they&#8217;ll get a lawsuit. But of course, they can continue to discriminate against whites all they want.
Sheetz seems to understand that. And there are already signs they&#8217;re going to cave. In response to this lawsuit, Sheetz issued a statement <a href="https://csnews.com/sheetz-reaffirms-commitment-di-following-eeoc-lawsuit" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying:</a> 
<blockquote>Diversity and inclusion are essential parts of who we are &#8230; We take these allegations seriously. We have attempted to work with the EEOC for nearly eight years to find common ground and resolve this dispute.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s not exactly a full-throated defense of their position, which is obviously the correct one. And as their statement notes, this has been going on for a long time — eight years in fact. So there&#8217;s some history here. I looked into it, and it turns out that this isn&#8217;t the first time the EEOC has filed a lawsuit like this. Back in 2019, the EEOC under the Trump administration <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/dollar-general-pay-6-million-settle-eeoc-class-race-discrimination-suit" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sued</a> Dollar General for:
<blockquote>…denying employment to African Americans at a significantly higher rate than white applicants for failing the company&#8217;s broad criminal background check.</blockquote>
What was the result? A $6 million settlement and a three-year consent decree.
According to a top EEOC attorney at the time,
<blockquote>This case is important because Dollar General is not just providing relief for a past practice but for the future as well. &#8230; If the company plans to use criminal history, it must retain a criminologist to develop a fair process. Unlike other background checks based on unproven myths and biases about people with criminal backgrounds, Dollar General&#8217;s new approach will be informed by experts with knowledge of actual risk.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s hard to believe it&#8217;s a real quote. They&#8217;re saying it&#8217;s an &#8220;unproven myth and bias&#8221; to believe that someone with a previous history of criminal behavior is more likely to commit other crimes in the future. You don&#8217;t need any statistics to know how absurd that is. You just need common sense. But here are the statistics anyway. According to the DOJ&#8217;s <a href="https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/04-2022/reintegration_resources.html#:~:text=State%20prisoner%20recidivism%20rates%20average,Durose%2C%20and%20Markman%202018)." target="_blank" rel="noopener">own numbers:</a>
<blockquote>&#8230; at least half of citizens released from incarceration will recidivate in some way following release. </blockquote>
And according to other <a href="https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/repeatarrests.html#:~:text=Our%20analysis%20finds%20that%2027,to%20jail%20within%20a%20year." target="_blank" rel="noopener">estimates</a>, including a survey from Prison Policy, roughly a third of people who are arrested report that they&#8217;re re-arrested for another offense within a year. There are about a million other data points you can find. But suffice it to say, it&#8217;s not a &#8220;myth&#8221; that criminals are more likely to reoffend. It&#8217;s an extremely basic and obvious fact. And yet the EEOC pretended it&#8217;s not real. Now Dollar General needs an &#8220;expert&#8221; to tell them they&#8217;re being racist if they reject a black guy with five prior convictions.
How did that go completely unnoticed at the time? Why didn&#8217;t the Trump White House override what the EEOC was doing and fire everyone involved? Who knows. The most likely answer is that the White House wasn&#8217;t aware of it. And if that&#8217;s the case, it&#8217;s hard to think of a better argument that the federal government needs to be cut in half immediately, for starters, and most of these unelected bureaucrats need to find new jobs. They have gone rogue and they&#8217;re implementing policies that defy all logic, and they should be fired en masse.
That should be the first executive order if, in fact, there is a second Trump administration. With the Sheetz case, the Biden administration is trying to shake down yet another company in order to erase the distinction between criminals and noncriminals. This is economic sabotage. And it simply can’t be allowed to succeed.

“now hiring” sign posted on business door

Biden Administration Declares That Criminal Background Checks Are Racist Against Black People

Biden Administration

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

EEOC

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Readers Pass

The Biden administration sent an internal email warning that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/gender" target="_blank" rel="noopener">transgender</a> people face &#8220;increasing attacks&#8221; just days after a trans-identified shooter killed six people at a Christian school in Nashville.
The <a href="https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A1bd88abe-8d1c-3dee-affc-f1482b72fa7e&amp;viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover" target="_blank" rel="noopener">email</a> was sent by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that works to enforce federal civil rights laws against workplace discrimination. The communication was obtained by the Heritage Foundation and shared with The Daily Wire.
&#8220;At a time when transgender individuals and their families face increasing attacks on their rights and basic humanity, it is critically important for the EEOC to continue enforcing the rights of transgender workers under the law,&#8221; reads the email from EEOC Chairwoman Charlotte Burrows.
Burrows sent the email on March 31 to mark and celebrate &#8220;Transgender Day of Visibility,&#8221; just four days after the Nashville shooting.
On March 27, a trans-identifying woman gunned down six people at a Christian school in Nashville, including three children.
The shooter was a former student and may have been partly motivated by a sense of “resentment,” <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crime/resentment-possible-motive-covenant-school-shooter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to Nashville police.
Burrows, who includes her pronouns in her signature, said in the email that she is &#8220;pleased&#8221; to share that the EEOC has sued a Buffalo restaurant that &#8220;subjected a young transgender worker to egregious harassment based on his gender identity.&#8221;
&#8220;The harassment was led by one of the restaurant&#8217;s owners and included offensive questions about the employee&#8217;s genitalia, statements that he was not a &#8216;real man,&#8217; and equating transgender status with pedophilia,&#8221; Burrows wrote. &#8220;The employee was also repeatedly and intentionally referred to as &#8216;she&#8217; or &#8216;her&#8217; even though he presented as male from the beginning of his employment and clarified early on that he uses male pronouns.&#8221;
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-81130">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Burrows also shared that the EEOC is updating its &#8220;nondiscrimination and inclusion&#8221; policy on gender identity and sexual orientation to make it more inclusive. This includes a new gender identity and inclusion coordinator to help trans-identifying employees.
&#8220;Many thanks to each of you for all that you are doing to make the EEOC a safe and inclusive environment and a place where transgender workers can seek and obtain justice,&#8221; Burrows concluded in her email.
The EEOC email was obtained by attorney Roman Jankowski who serves as senior investigative counsel for the Heritage Foundation&#8217;s Oversight Project.
&#8220;I was disappointed to find out that even the EEOC doesn’t actually believe in equality when it comes to religious discrimination,&#8221; Jankowski told The Daily Wire.
&#8220;The administration’s obsession with equality seems to ironically exclude groups it doesn&#8217;t like — especially if they are Christians,&#8221; Jankowski said. &#8220;The Chairwomen of the EEOC, Charlotte Burrows, appears to care more about the pronouns than the children massacred by a radical transgender shooter. At what point is the Biden Administration held accountable for their embrace of poisonous, divisive and violent ideology?&#8221;
President Biden has made it a priority to support gender ideology, even inviting a trans-identified influencer, a man who identifies as a woman, to the White House for a discussion last fall.
The gender issue has become a hot-button topic over the last several years as trans-identifying youth are on the rise and parents and medical professionals speak out about their concerns.

US-POLITICS-BIDEN

Biden Admin Internal Email Warned Trans People Face ‘Increasing Attacks’ Days After Nashville Shooting

Biden Admin Internal Email Said Trans People Face 'Increasing Attacks' Days After Nashville Shooting

Biden Admin

Executive

Gender

Transgender

U.S.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/eeoc">EEOC</a>) issued a reasonable cause finding to automaker <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/tesla">Tesla</a> over <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/systemic-racism">systemic racism</a> allegations, according to a recent filing from the company.
In February, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) <a href="https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/02/TeslaPR2.10.22.pdf">said</a> that it had received hundreds of complaints from African-American workers who claimed they had been segregated “to the lowest levels of the workforce” at the company and lacked representation “in the ranks of executives, senior officials, and managers.” Tesla’s most recent <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000095017022012936/tsla-20220630.htm">filing</a> with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indicated that the EEOC had issued a finding that “closely parallels” allegations from the state of California.
Tesla will begin the “mandatory pre-filing conciliation process” with the EEOC, according to the document, by which the company will potentially <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-eeoc-conciliation-and-litigation">engage</a> in a mutual resolution with the alleged victims of discrimination.
Yet Tesla had formerly called the DFEH investigation “misguided” and an attempt to “generate publicity,” noting that every one of the more than 50 discrimination accusations faced by Tesla over the past five years had been debunked by the DFEH.
“It therefore strains credibility for the agency to now allege, after a three-year investigation, that systematic racial discrimination and harassment somehow existed at Tesla,” the company said in a <a href="https://www.tesla.com/blog/dfehs-misguided-lawsuit">blog post</a>. “A narrative spun by the DFEH and a handful of plaintiff firms to generate publicity is not factual proof … Attacking a company like Tesla that has done so much good for California should not be the overriding aim of a state agency with prosecutorial authority.”
The news of the federal inquiry follows the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/feds-confirm-investigation-into-elon-musk">announcing</a> in May that it would investigate Musk’s disclosure that he failed to disclose on time that he held more than 5% of Twitter shares. Musk has since <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitter-misses-earnings-forecast-blames-elon-musk">argued</a> that Twitter’s disclosed number of false or spam accounts is inaccurate and claimed that the company has neglected to provide him with precise information about its number of users.
The Biden administration’s Department of Energy said on Monday that it would provide General Motors (GM) with a $2.5 billion loan to finance construction of new electric battery facilities in Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan, according to a report from <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/exclusive-us-energy-department-set-loan-gm-battery-joint-venture-25-bln-2022-07-25/">Reuters</a>. President Joe Biden has frequently lauded GM and Ford amid their efforts to expand electric vehicle offerings — yet has consistently decided to turn a blind eye to Tesla, the world’s largest electric vehicle automaker.
Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki hinted at Tesla’s lack of unionization last year when she was asked why the company did not receive an invitation to an electric vehicle <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/joe-bidens-electric-vehicle-summit-excludes-tesla">summit</a> in which Ford and GM participated.
“Well, we, of course, welcome the efforts of all automakers who recognize the potential of an electric vehicle future and support efforts that will help reach the president’s goal. And certainly, Tesla is one of those companies,” Psaki said. “Today, it’s the three largest employers of the United Auto Workers, and the UAW president who will stand with President Biden as he announces his ambitious new target, but I would not expect this is the last time we talk about clean cars, the move toward electric vehicles, and we look forward to having a range of partners in that effort.”
Nevertheless, GM recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-praised-gm-over-tesla-now-gm-is-moving-jobs-to-mexico">announced</a> that it plans to manufacture the battery-powered 2024 Chevrolet Blazer in Ramos Arizpe, Mexico, where the gas-powered version of the car is presently assembled.

Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk News Conference

Federal Government Launches Systemic Racism Probe Into Tesla

Federal Government Takes Cue From California, Launches Systemic Racism Probe Into Tesla

Systemic Racism

Tesla

A <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/judiciary">U.S. District Court</a> in Tennessee has temporarily barred the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/biden-administration">Biden administration</a> from enforcing a policy that would have required states to allow athletes who identify as transgender to play on the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/sports">sports</a> teams of the gender they identify with.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Charles Atchley Jr. ruled in favor of 20 state attorneys general who sued the Biden administration in August 2021, the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-sports-donald-trump-discrimination-gender-identity-bc841e715c2d93b2c2da2e10470aba13">reported</a>. The attorneys general argued that two federal agencies — the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of Education — were overstepping their mandate from Congress by crafting new guidance that would have trampled upon existing or future state gender laws.
In addition to affecting transgender athletes, the Biden administration policy would have allowed individuals who identify as transgender to enter locker rooms and use bathrooms of the opposite biological sex.
In June 2021, DOE said that discrimination based on their gender identity would be a violation of Title IX. The EEOC also issued new guidance for private businesses. Many of these states represented in the lawsuit had crafted laws that ran afoul of those federal policies and argued that the court needed to issue a temporary injunction on the federal guidance until their lawsuit could make its way through the system.
&#8220;As demonstrated above, the harm alleged by Plaintiff States is already occurring — their sovereign power to enforce their own legal code is hampered by the issuance of Defendants’ guidance and they face substantial pressure to change their state laws as a result,” Atchley <a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-sports-donald-trump-discrimination-gender-identity-bc841e715c2d93b2c2da2e10470aba13">wrote</a> in his ruling on Friday.
Tennessee&#8217;s Attorney General Herbert Slatery led the lawsuit and claimed that the justification for DOE&#8217;s and EEOC&#8217;s guidance rested on a false interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, which <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/15/supreme-court-denies-job-protection-lgbt-workers/4456749002/">declared</a> that it was discriminatory for a private business to fire or hire somebody based on their gender identity or sexual orientation under Title VII.
“These agencies also have misconstrued the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision by claiming its prohibition of discrimination applies to locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms under Title IX and Title VII and biological men who identify as women competing in women’s sports, when the Supreme Court specifically said it was not deciding those issues in Bostock,” Slatery argued in August 2021 lawsuit, Courthouse News <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/20-states-sue-biden-administration-over-transgender-protections/">reported</a> at the time.
The lawsuit also said that the Biden administration “purports to resolve highly controversial and localized issues such as … whether individuals may be compelled to use another person’s preferred pronouns. But the agencies have no authority to resolve those sensitive questions, let alone to do so by executive fiat without providing any opportunity for public participation.”
The attorneys general argued that the agencies in question were &#8220;usurping authority that properly belongs to Congress, the States, and the people and to eliminate the nationwide confusion and upheaval that the agencies’ recent guidance has inflicted on States and other regulated entities.”
Prior to the injunction, DOE could have enacted various sanctions on schools or colleges that did not comply with their transgender guidance. Ultimately, the attorneys general challenging the administration want the court to declare the policies &#8220;invalid and unlawful and to prohibit their enforcement.”
The Biden administration has recently suffered major setbacks when attempting to enforce new policies on states in other domestic issues.
In June, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rules-against-bidens-epa-says-agency-does-not-have-authority-to-regulate-carbon-dioxide-emissions">ruled</a> 6-3  in West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA lacked the authority to curb greenhouse gases in order to bring about a transition away from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/coal">coal energy</a> throughout the country because it was not specifically granted that power by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/congress">Congress</a>.

Protesters in support of girls sorts

Federal Court Bars Biden Admin From Forcing Radical Gender Policy On States

Federal Court Temporarily Bars Biden Admin From Forcing States To Comply With Radical Gender Ideology Policies

Court

Department of Education

Gender Identity

Transgender Athletes

A Texas judge denied the Biden administration’s effort to dismiss Texas’ lawsuit targeting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which had issued controversial guidance allowing exceptions for LGBT employees from workplace policies.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had issued guidance in March 2020 that mandated mixed-use bathrooms, gender pronouns, and dress codes in the workplace; the Biden administration’s Health and Human Services had issued guidance against Texas’s child abuse laws and “sex-change” procedures.
“The federal government <a href="https://thetexan.news/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/EEOC-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf">asked</a> the judge to dismiss the case for several reasons, including the claim that the Supreme Court interpreted sex discrimination to include gender identity as well as biological sex in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-1618">Bostock v. Clayton County</a> and that these guidance documents were only summaries, not binding rules,” <a href="https://thetexan.news/judge-rules-texas-may-continue-lawsuit-over-federal-requirement-that-employers-accommodate-transgender-pronouns-facility-use/">The Texan</a> reported.
“The Biden Administration’s constant attack on Texas values will not be met without a fight,” Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton <a href="https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-victorious-again-court-green-lights-texas-suit-against-biden-administration">said</a>. “We stand by the law of the land and will not bend to Biden’s empty threats that twist the U.S. Constitution. I will protect our children from life-altering procedures that put their lives at risk. Texans will not be bullied to adopt the Biden Administration’s sexual ideology. I look forward to our day in court.”
The Biden Administration also argued that Texas’ lawsuit was premature because President Biden’s threatened enforcement actions had not yet been implemented. But Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk sided with Texas.
“The March 2 Guidance ‘does not simply repeat the relevant provisions’ of the statutes and regulations it relies on,” Kacsmaryk <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/20220526_53%20ORDER%20Granting%20and%20Denying%20in%20Part%20Ds'%20MTD.Judge%20Kacsmaryk.pdf">wrote</a>. “Instead, the March 2 Guidance ‘purports to interpret authoritatively’ those statutory and regulatory requirements. The March 2 Guidance states: ‘Section 1557 protects the right of individuals to access the health programs and activities of recipients of federal financial assistance without facing discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity.’”
“Therefore — according to HHS — ‘[c]ategorically refusing to provide treatment to an individual based on their gender identity is prohibited discrimination,’ and ‘federally-funded covered entities restricting an individual’s ability to receive medically necessary care, including gender-affirming care, from their health care provider solely on the basis of their sex assigned at birth or gender identity likely violates Section 1557,’” he noted.
“But Section 1557 does not include the terms ‘sex’ or ‘gender identity I,” he explained. “Instead, Section 1557 expressly incorporates Title IX, which prohibits discrimination ‘on the basis of sex.’ Based on the ordinary public meaning conveyed when Congress enacted Title IX and “judicially accepted principles of linguistics in reading the whole — including compositionality . . . . Title IX appears to operate in binary terms — male and female — when it references ‘sex.’”
&nbsp;

Menu

EEOC

Biden Administration Declares That Criminal Background Checks Are Racist Against Black People

Biden Admin Internal Email Warned Trans People Face ‘Increasing Attacks’ Days After Nashville Shooting

Federal Government Launches Systemic Racism Probe Into Tesla

Federal Court Bars Biden Admin From Forcing Radical Gender Policy On States

Texas Defeats Biden, Judge Won’t Dismiss Lawsuit On LGBT Issues