Defending Women in the Workplace Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 9, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to narrow federal anti-discrimination protections in employment by explicitly excluding gender identity from the definition of sex discrimination under Title VII.
What it actually does
This bill explicitly states that the terms "because of sex" and "on the basis of sex" within Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do not include discrimination based on gender identity. This legislative action aims to reverse the interpretation established by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill restores the original legislative intent of Title VII, asserting that when enacted in 1964, Congress did not intend for 'sex' to encompass gender identity. They contend that this clarification is necessary to uphold biological sex-based distinctions and to ensure that Congress, rather than the judiciary, defines the scope of civil rights protections.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill rolls back crucial civil rights protections for transgender individuals, leaving them vulnerable to discrimination in employment. They argue that discrimination based on gender identity is inherently a form of sex discrimination, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, and that such a change would cause significant harm to transgender workers and undermine workplace equality.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for a complete understanding in a very brief reading time.
Section 2
Clarification of 'Because of Sex' and 'On the Basis of Sex'
This section explicitly amends the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by stating that the terms "because of sex" and "on the basis of sex" do not include discrimination based on gender identity. This means that under federal law, employers would not be prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on their gender identity, effectively removing gender identity as a protected characteristic under Title VII.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision clarifies the original intent of Title VII, asserting that 'sex' as understood in 1964 referred exclusively to biological sex. They believe this legislative action is necessary to correct what they view as judicial overreach by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, returning the authority to define protected classes to Congress.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision is a direct attack on the rights of transgender individuals, stripping them of crucial employment protections. They argue that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination, as recognized by the Supreme Court, and that this bill would legalize discrimination against a vulnerable population, leading to significant harm and inequity in the workplace.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between legislative intent and evolving interpretations of civil rights law. It trades the broad, inclusive interpretation of 'sex' to include gender identity for a narrower, biologically-defined understanding, potentially prioritizing a specific historical interpretation over contemporary understandings of discrimination and equality.