spectator.org
Federal Bureaucrats Make All Businesses Support Abortion
Repeatedly misgendering fellow employees and harassing a coworker over their pregnancy status could contravene updated federal harassment guidelines.
Is having a crucifix on one’s desk disruptive? How about wearing a cross necklace?
You heard that right. In its first workplace harassment guidance update in 25 years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released new guidelines that protect LGBT and pregnant workers, among other groups. Harassment at in-person or virtual workspaces based on employees’ decisions around contraception and abortion are now covered, as well as protection for an individuals’ bathroom choice and pronouns based on their gender identity. (READ MORE: Universities Must End DEI and Implement DEI)
While the rules are already subject to legal challenge, as free speech and religious rights clash with the newly expanded interpretations of U.S. civil rights laws, the Biden EEOC helpfully attempted to hedge off those concerns, stating that employers are not required to accommodate religious expression that fosters a hostile work environment.
The harassment guidance is not the only controversial statute recently put in force by the EEOC. Last month, the EEOC delivered its final rule that implements the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The bipartisan (and U,S. Conference of Catholic Bishops-supported) PWFA requires employers to accommodate pregnant, post-partum, and infertile workers unless doing so would cause undue hardship to an employer. That’s an initiative we can all get on board with.
However, due to a surreptitious line of text appended by the EEOC in their final rule implementing the Act, companies will also have to accommodate time-off requests so female workers can access an abortion. Naturally, religious employers immediately decried this addition, stating that forced accommodation of abortion amounted to religious discrimination.
Back to the harassment guidance, it’s clear based on the examples the EEOC gives that many of these newfound protections are designed to benefit liberal Democrats’ preferred victim categories. Just see this one, where a working mother is shamed for her career choices by … another working mother:
Dara and Sloane are lab technicians at a pharmaceutical research laboratory. On multiple occasions, one of their coworkers, Rose, makes dismissive comments to Dara, who has three children, such as, “shouldn’t mothers stay at home with their kids?” and “don’t expect to move up the career ladder with all of those children.” Rose also makes dismissive comments to Sloane, who has no children and intends to remain childfree, on a handful of occasions, such as, “women who don’t want children are frigid,” “it is sad to watch you choose a career over a family,” and “are you sure you don’t want a baby? Every woman should want a baby!” Based on these facts, Rose’s harassing conduct toward Dara and Sloane is based on their sex even though they all are women.
And another, where a man who identifies as a woman is persistently misgendered by his supervisor:
Chloe, a purchase order coordinator at a retail store warehouse, is approached by her supervisor, Alton, who asks whether she was “born a man” because he had heard a rumor that “there was a transvestite in the department.” Chloe disclosed to Alton that she is transgender and asked him to keep this information confidential. After this conversation, Alton instructed Chloe to wear pants to work because a dress would be “inappropriate,” despite other purchase order coordinators being permitted to wear dresses and skirts. Alton also asks inappropriate questions about Chloe’s anatomy and sexual relationships. Further, whenever Alton is frustrated with Chloe, he misgenders her by using, with emphasis, “he/him” pronouns, sometimes in front of Chloe’s coworkers. Based on these facts, Alton’s harassing conduct toward Chloe is based on her gender identity.
The EEOC includes other more conservative-friendly examples of harassment in an attempt to cover their tracks, but their efforts are undercut by another example, wherein they do not hesitate to highlight the left-wing ideology of intersectionality. Intersectional harassment occurs when someone makes fun of two of your protected characteristics, not just one. This double whammy “may, in fact, compound the harm,” warns the agency. (READ MORE: Claudine Gay: Another DEI Success Story)
The slippery slope that has emerged since the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County is clear. Bostock held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on employment discrimination due to sex also included sexual orientation and gender identity. In light of the ruling, the EEOC has decided that employers banning transgender employees from using their preferred bathroom (i.e. violating other people’s rights) is discriminatory.
Harassment based on gender expression is covered by their guidance. Outing someone as gay, lesbian, transgender, or some other orientation is a potential violation. Repeated and intentional use of an inconsistent pronoun could lead to disciplinary action — just don’t ask the agency how they define “intentional.” It’s likely that definition will get worked out by the courts before long.
The EEOC correctly notes that another Supreme Court case demands that companies accommodate religious expression as long as an accommodation does not cause the business undue hardship. However, they show where their allegiances lie by stating that if a worker expressing their religion disrupts the work of another employee or even merely threatens to constitute harassment, that behavior can constitute undue hardship.
Is having a crucifix on one’s desk disruptive? How about wearing a cross necklace? Are you “merely threatening to constitute harassment” if you recognize biological reality and call someone by the pronouns that match their appearance? According to Biden’s bureaucracy — which assures us that it “fully recognizes the importance of the constitutional right to free speech” — maybe?
It is clear that intersectionality and other DEI initiatives have been instituted as this administration’s catechism, in what I have described elsewhere as a new form of Christian nationalism. As always, small businesses and corporations will be left to comply or face the Inclusion Inquisition.
The post Federal Bureaucrats Make All Businesses Support Abortion appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
