A brief history of protections for LGBTQIA+ employees

Historically, there has been significant ambiguity regarding existing federal civil rights protections and whether they extend to discrimination based on gender identity. The most encompassing legal protections against workplace discrimination are afforded by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1964), which outlaws discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, and sex. The ambiguity stems from the interpretation of “sex” under the law; namely, if it should be understood to extend to gender identity. In the absence of any other explicit federal protection, this left the question of whether gender identity was covered by the Civil Rights Act up to the interpretation of the courts. This question eventually matriculated up to the Supreme Court when they heard the Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) case (in conjunction with R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2018), and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 2020) in 2020. In their ruling on this case, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Rights Act does indeed extend to gender identity.

Prior to the Bostock case, the degree to which transgender employees were protected at work was largely determined by state, municipal, and organizational policies. And given that fewer than half of US states had adopted explicit antidiscrimination policies for gender identity as of 2020 (Human Rights Campaign, 2024), organizational policies and practices were perhaps most salient in shaping transgender employees’ workplace experiences. Organizations seeking to create inclusive environments for transgender employees could thus adopt targeted policies to achieve this goal (e.g., adding gender-neutral bathrooms, honoring employees’ names and pronouns, offering support for gender transitions; Thoroughgood et al., Reference Thoroughgood, Sawyer and Webster2020). Now, two executive orders passed by the current administration threaten both the ruling in Bostock v. Clayton Count (2020) and organizations’ freedom to have policies and practices that ensure their transgender employees do not face unequal and unnecessary barriers at work. We turn our attention to these now.

Executive Orders 14168 and 14151

The first executive order of relevance is Executive Order 14168 (Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government; Exec. Order No. 14168, 2025), which was signed on inauguration day. This order is of particular importance because it may represent another shift in how we interpret available workplace protections on the basis of gender identity. Though there are many components to EO 14168 that warrant attention, what is most central is that it advances definitional language around sex and gender that fails to acknowledge the existence of transgender individuals, and in so doing, undermines the hard-won legal rights only recently granted by Bostock. More specifically, the order defines sex as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female,” declares that “‘sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity,’” and states that gender identity “does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.”

The order thus establishes that it is now the official policy of the United States to only recognize the existence of two sexes (“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.”), a definition that ignores decades of scientific evidence to the contrary (American Medical Association, 2023), and that identifying as a gender outside of one’s sex assigned at birth will be considered a false claim. There have been immediate consequences of redefining sex and gender identity in this way, with Texas state Representative Tom Oliverson proposing a bill that would make identifying as transgender a felony punishable with up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine because it would be classified as committing fraud (Yurcaba, Reference Yurcaba2025). Importantly, the language adopted in EO 14168 established the foundation for the Texas bill to arise as it refers to gender identity as being “disconnected from biological reality.”

More consequentially, redefining sex also has critical implications for the interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Bostock ruling. The premise of the holding in Bostock was that “sex” should be interpreted to subsume gender identity, but EO 14168 now explicitly defines “sex” and “gender identity” separately by stating that “sex” cannot be used as a synonym for “gender identity.” The order also continues on to say that all federal sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations should be given on the basis of sex as defined in this executive order. This order also rescinds a Biden-era EO that was created to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (Exec. Order No. 13988 (2021). The interpretation is thus that, although an executive order cannot overturn a Supreme Court ruling, this order may effectively remove protections for transgender employees by limiting civil rights cases to those that are related to one’s biological sex (Wolf, Reference Wolf2025).

Congruent with this interpretation, the EEOC has already begun dropping cases that initially aligned with the Bostock ruling as a direct result of this executive order (Savage & Olson, Reference Savage and Olson2025). Reports indicate that at least six such cases will be dropped, including three cases in Illinois, one in Alabama, one in New York, and one in California. These cases all involve transgender complainants who experienced treatment such as repeated misgendering; sexual, verbal, or physical harassment related to their gender identity; and/or retaliation for reporting these experiences.

Moreover, in a press release by the EEOC, Andrea Lucas, the acting chair of the EEOC, also confirmed her commitment to enacting these changes, stating that one of her top priorities is to “defend the biological and binary reality of sex” and announcing several actions the EEOC will take to achieve that goal (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2025). Lucas was also quoted as saying, “biology is not bigotry” and “it is not harassment to acknowledge these truths–or to use language like pronouns that flow from these realities, even repeatedly.” This sends a clear message about the current intentions of the EEOC and categorizes even intentional and repeated misgendering of transgender employees as falling squarely outside of the definition of harassment.

Given the current posture of the federal government toward transgender employees, organizational policies, practices, and programs again become even more important for determining the workplace experiences of transgender employees. However, in addition to EO 14168, the current administration introduced EO 14151 (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing; Exec. Order No. 14151, 2025), an order designed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from federal agencies. Specifically, the order calls for federal agencies to:

Though this order broadly eliminates any effort designed to provide individuals from underrepresented groups equal opportunities and fair treatment, this subsumes any programs aimed at fostering inclusion or equity for transgender employees. In response, agencies have already taken actions that are likely to adversely affect transgender employees. As just one example, Andrea Lucas ordered the removal of the EEOC’s “pronoun app,” which allowed employees the option to identify their pronouns attached to their Microsoft Teams display name (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2025). Other federal agencies will be required to follow suit and eliminate any programming that directly benefits transgender employees or risk consequences from the federal government.

Implications for employees

Focusing first on employees, one critical implication of these executive orders is that discrimination targeting transgender employees may become more prevalent and/or more severe. This is especially likely now that the EEOC has begun dropping gender identity discrimination cases for transgender employees (Savage & Olson, Reference Savage and Olson2025), which sends an implicit signal that there will not be formal, federal repercussions for discriminating against transgender employees. In the absence of expected repercussions, it is possible that formal discrimination (e.g., wrongful and biased hiring, firing, and promotion; Hebl et al., Reference Hebl, Foster, Mannix and Dovidio2002) toward transgender employees will increase. Even with the federal protections afforded by Bostock, reports of formal gender identity discrimination persist (James et al., Reference James, Herman, Durso and Heng-Lehtinen2024), and this will likely only worsen in the presence of constraints on both federal protections and organizational initiatives that might otherwise buffer transgender employees.

Additionally, interpersonal discrimination will also likely increase as a result of these executive orders. EO 14168, and the subsequent abandonment of federal repercussions through the EEOC, may lead to both increased subtle (e.g., microaggressions) and overt (e.g., harassment, assault) discrimination (Hebl et al., Reference Hebl, Foster, Mannix and Dovidio2002). Transgender employees may increasingly become the targets of intentional misgendering, or the use of incorrect pronouns or titles to refer to another person (McLemore, Reference McLemore2015). Indeed, we have already witnessed a very public case of misgendering when Representative Keith Self felt emboldened to intentionally use the wrong language to refer to Sarah McBride, the first transgender person elected to congress because he was following “the standard of the house” set by EO 14168 (Ibssa, Reference Ibssa2025). Therefore, it is probable that employees around the United States will feel similarly empowered to treat transgender coworkers in the same way.

Moreover, increased discrimination may prompt transgender employees to conceal their identity as a form of protection. Transgender people have historically concealed their identity as a way to shield themselves from discrimination and harassment, an identity management approach that may show a notable uptick in light of the recent federal changes targeting transgender employees (e.g., Hutchinson et al., Reference Hutchinson, Shircliff, Glass, Miller, Marquez-Velarde and Suárez2024; Kade, Reference Kade2021). Transgender employees may opt to conceal their identity by adjusting their appearance to align with binary gender expectations, not sharing their pronouns, or delaying their transition altogether (Hutchinson et al., Reference Hutchinson, Shircliff, Glass, Miller, Marquez-Velarde and Suárez2024). Though concealment can be a useful and protective strategy, it can also lead to adverse consequences, such as reductions in self-esteem, belongingness, and job satisfaction, as well as increased stress, depression, and anxiety (e.g., Jones et al., Reference Jones, Peddie, Gilrane, King and Gray2016; Newheiser et al., Reference Newheiser, Barreto and Tiemersma2017; Osmetti et al., Reference Osmetti, Allen and Kozlowski2024).

The negative outcomes identified above (i.e., increased formal and interpersonal discrimination and increased concealment) could culminate in even greater health inequities for transgender employees. Transgender people already experience disproportionately worse health outcomes when compared to cisgender people, including increased suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, psychological distress and disorders, and substance use (James et al., Reference James, Herman, Rankin, Keisling, Mottet and Anafi2016; Zeeman et al., Reference Zeeman, Sherriff, Browne, McGlynn, Mirandola, Gios, Davis, Sanchez-Lambert, Aujean, Pinto, Farinella, Donisi, Niedźwiedzka-Stadnik, Rosińska, Pierson and Amaddeo2019). Therefore, the positions established by EO 14168 could have dangerous, long-term consequences for transgender health. Moreover, anticipated (e.g., Thoroughgood et al., Reference Thoroughgood, Sawyer and Webster2017), witnessed, and/or experienced (e.g., Dhanani et al., Reference Dhanani, Beus and Joseph2018) discrimination can cause transgender and cisgender employees alike to leave their organization altogether (Jones et al., Reference Jones, Peddie, Gilrane, King and Gray2016; Newheiser et al., Reference Newheiser, Barreto and Tiemersma2017). The possibility of increased turnover warrants consideration because it can have significant consequences for organizations, including impacts on organizational performance, customer satisfaction, productivity, and profit (e.g., Park & Shaw, Reference Park and Shaw2013).

Beyond federal employees

Importantly, these consequences will not only be felt by transgender employees working within federal contexts. We expect people working within that context to be particularly hard hit, but any changes to the interpretation and implementation of the Bostock ruling will apply to all workplaces. As one example of an early implementation of EO 14168, the New Hampshire House passed a bill that allows private organizations to segregate spaces by biological sex, with some using the definition of sex advanced in the order to defend this position (House Bill 148; Skipworth, Reference Skipworth2025). Other organizations may follow suit, using the language from EO 14168 that emphasized that organizations do not need to provide “gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces” and framed providing inclusive spaces to transgender people as a threat to women as justification. Similarly, though EO 14151 restricts DEI programming for federal offices, many private organizations not explicitly governed by the executive order have preemptively complied in the face of political pressure (e.g., Schneid, Reference Schneid2025). Thus, it is quite possible that many private organizations will also adjust their policies to disband any transgender-friendly practices they had previously instituted. There is also reason to believe that these changes will have impacts that expand beyond just transgender employees, as was well highlighted by the recent firing of a cisgender Walmart employee who was mistaken for being transgender, harassed in the bathroom, and then dismissed after filing a report about the incident (Wu, Reference Wu2025).

Implications for industrial-organizational professionals

The executive orders will also have consequences for practitioners working within organizations. In particular, EO 14151 has and likely will continue to negatively impact DEI offices, practices, and positions in organizations across the USA (Schneid, Reference Schneid2025). Aside from threats to job security for DEI practitioners, these cuts to DEI will also impact the available support for employees, particularly transgender employees, at a time when this employee population may have the greatest need. Practitioners may also have the additional burden of interpreting these executive orders for their organization, to know what is and is not permissible. This is particularly difficult considering Trump has issued over 100 executive orders within the first months of his presidency (Doan & Ingram, Reference Doan and Ingram2025). Practitioners may experience additional stress attempting to navigate the legality of their organization’s policies. Finally, the push to remove DEI may expose practitioners to potential interpersonal and formal consequences (e.g., discrimination, firing) for engaging in advocacy and inclusion on behalf of transgender employees. Indeed, without formal protections in place, diversity scholars and employees with stigmatized identities could face severe repercussions.

Recommendations for I-O psychologists

As transgender employees and DEI practitioners face these new challenges imposed by Executive Orders 14168 and 14151, I-O psychologists can take action to alleviate some of the potential harm. First, researchers should conduct studies to document the impact of these executive actions, tracking levels of discrimination, identity concealment, and indicators of mental and physical health before and after their implementation. Doing so would be advantageous because it would arm policymakers with direct empirical evidence rather than requiring them to rely on speculation or indirect claims when revising or crafting new policy in the future. Second, given the increased burden placed on practitioners, I-O psychologists working within organizations, perhaps in tandem with legal experts, could form a support network for sharing resources related to interpreting and implementing policy changes and to provide social support for those in need. Third, researchers and practitioners could both work to identify general HR policies and practices that benefit transgender employees that are still in compliance with DEI bans. Examples could include adopting flexible dress code policies, allowing employees to work from home, particularly if the physical environment is segregated by sex, and creating mentoring programs open to all employees, all of which have broad positive impacts for employees as well as specific advantages for transgender employees (Bailey et al., Reference Bailey, Horton and Galinsky2022; Dhanani et al., Reference Dhanani, Sultan, Pham, Mikami, Charles and Crandell2024; Gajendran & Harrison, Reference Gajendran and Harrison2007; Ivanovic, Reference Ivanovic2019; Martinez et al., Reference Martinez, Sawyer, Thoroughgood, Ruggs and Smith2017). Finally, professional organizations such as SIOP and APA can also play a part by facilitating the publicization of relevant research, practice, and other evidence documenting the benefits of supporting transgender employees at work.