The Sixth Circuit decision seems overall correct, although it contains some "woke dicta," too.

Asserting that the U.S. Department of Justice “must interpret Title VII as written by Congress,” the DOJ is reversing the Obama-era interpretation of Title VII, taking the position that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.

In a memorandum issued this week by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the DOJ formally withdrew a 2014 memorandum by then-Attorney General Eric Holder taking the contrary position.

Attorney General Sessions contends that transgender individuals are protected from discrimination based on sex, but not based on “gender identity per se.” He noted that Title VII refers only to discrimination based on “sex,” which is “ordinarily defined to mean biologically male or female.” He also noted that Congress had specifically referred to gender identity in other contexts, indicating that it would have done so in Title VII had that been its intent. Finally, he said that Title VII did not prohibit treatment “that [took] account of the sex of employees but [did] not impose different burdens on similarly situated members of each sex,” specifically referencing sex-specific bathrooms.

The memorandum concludes as follows:

The Justice Department must and will continue to affirm the dignity of all people, including transgender individuals. Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to condone mistreatment on the basis of gender identity, or to express a policy view on whether Congress should amend Title VII to provide different or additional protections. Nor does this memorandum remove or reduce the protections against discrimination on the basis of sex that Congress has provided all individuals, including transgender individuals, under Title VII. . . . The Department of Justice has vigorously enforced [federal laws specifically protecting transgender individuals], and will continue to do so, on behalf of all Americans, including transgender Americans.

The DOJ position is not a surprise, given that it recently submitted a “friend of the court” brief making roughly the same arguments in a sexual orientation discrimination case.

The U.S. Department of Labor submitted its brief today in Nevada v. U.S. Department of Labor, the case involving the challenge to the Obama Administration's overtime rule.

Some very quick background: The overtime rule, which would have more than doubled the salary threshold for administrative, executive, and some professional exemptions from the minimum wage and overtime ...

LaLonnie wrote this post with Sandra Sok, who is clerking for the summer in our Denver Office. Sandra is a rising second-year student at the University of Colorado Law School. Before starting law school, she worked as a paralegal while earning her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Irvine.

A law was born.  On June 23, 1972, President Richard Nixon ...

As our readers know, discrimination against transgender individuals is often treated as sex discrimination under Title VII, as a form of unlawful "sex stereotyping."

But is it also a "disability" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act when an individual identifies with a gender other than his or her biological one?

Transgender individuals don't usually invoke the ...

Don't mess with Texas.

In Lubbock yesterday, Judge Sam R. Cummings permanently enjoined the U.S. Department of Labor's Persuader Rule, which is great news for employers. David Phippen has the full story here. The DOL can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (it's already appealing the preliminary injunction issued in June), but with the coming change in ...