Federal Agency Denies Transgender Army Employee’s Bathroom Access Request

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rejected an appeal from a transgender civilian Army worker who sought to use women's facilities at Fort Riley, Kansas. The 2-1 decision cited President Trump's executive order recognizing only male and female sexes, reversing the agency's previous stance on transgender workplace protections.

A federal civil rights agency has rejected a transgender Army employee’s request to use bathroom facilities matching her gender identity, marking a significant policy shift under the Trump administration.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled Thursday against an unnamed civilian information technology worker stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas. The employee had notified Army supervisors in summer 2025 that she identified as female and requested access to women’s restrooms and changing facilities, but officials denied her appeal.

Following the Army’s rejection of her internal grievance, the worker brought her case to the EEOC. However, the commission sided against her in a 2-1 vote, referencing President Trump’s recent executive directive that acknowledges only biological male and female categories. Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, the panel’s lone Democrat, opposed the majority ruling.

This decision represents a dramatic shift from the EEOC’s position ten years ago, when the agency found that denying a transgender Army employee bathroom access and preferred pronouns constituted workplace discrimination. The commission now argues that the Army’s actions don’t breach Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws employment discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and national origin.

EEOC Chairwoman Andrea Lucas has actively implemented Trump’s gender identity directives, withdrawing legal cases supporting transgender and nonbinary employees facing termination or harassment. She has also revised harassment policies to remove language suggesting that intentional misgendering or bathroom restrictions could constitute workplace harassment. Republican legislators have praised these changes while criticizing previous administrations for exceeding the agency’s authority on gender matters.

“Today’s opinion is consistent with the plain meaning of ‘sex’ as understood by Congress at the time Title VII was enacted, as well as longstanding civil rights principles: that similarly situated employees must be treated equally,” Lucas said in a statement. “Biology is not bigotry.”

The commission contended that permitting “trans-identifying” workers to access facilities matching their gender identity would effectively eliminate single-sex spaces altogether.

“All bathrooms would be mixed-sex by law, and every employee would be required to perform bodily and other private functions in the presence of the opposite-sex,” the EEOC wrote.

Kotagal strongly criticized the ruling in a LinkedIn statement.

“I strongly disagree with the decision’s substance and tone. The decision rests on the false premise that transgender workers are not worthy of the agency’s protection from discrimination and harassment and that protecting them threatens the rights of other workers. Worse, it suggests that transgender people do not exist,” Kotagal said.

Multiple transgender and gender-nonconforming federal workers have lodged formal discrimination complaints regarding Trump administration policies, which include removing “gender ideology” content from government websites and reinstating military service restrictions for transgender personnel.

The EEOC serves a quasi-judicial role, reviewing appeals from federal employees whose discrimination complaints were rejected by their agencies’ civil rights departments.

Thursday’s ruling affects all federal agencies but doesn’t apply to private companies, nor does it establish binding legal precedent for courts. For private sector cases, the EEOC investigates complaints and determines whether to pursue litigation but doesn’t issue formal decisions.

The Army employee has 30 days to request EEOC reconsideration or 90 days to file a new case in federal district court.

In her statement, Kotagal referenced the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision, arguing it strengthened Title VII protections for transgender workers. She criticized the EEOC for “rushing” its decision while a federal court examines similar issues in a class action lawsuit involving federal employees.

However, the EEOC maintained that Bostock only prevented employers from firing or refusing to hire transgender workers based on gender identity, without addressing bathroom access, locker room usage, or sex definitions.

Reflecting Lucas’s longstanding position, the EEOC argued that allowing transgender employees into their preferred facilities would endanger women by violating privacy expectations. This reasoning relied on the commission’s assertion that the Army employee isn’t actually a woman and was seeking “special treatment” by requesting access to “the opposite sex” facilities.

The EEOC referenced Trump’s executive order and dictionary definitions to support its position that “the complainant’s sex is male, from the moment of his conception and continuing even after he began to identify as transgender.”

While social conservatives have endorsed this viewpoint, the American Medical Association and other leading medical organizations cite extensive research suggesting sex and gender exist on a spectrum rather than in binary categories. Some biologists have criticized Trump’s executive order as scientifically flawed, noting it overlooks variations including intersex individuals who possess physical characteristics outside typical male or female definitions. The EEOC acknowledged intersex people represent “rare and unique circumstances” requiring “case-by-case” evaluation.

The Congressional Equality Caucus and various civil rights organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign and National Women’s Law Center, denounced the decision.

“Andrea Lucas has spent her time leading EEOC undermining enforcement of minority workers’ rights — she’s exactly who the Commission was designed to fight back against,” said Rep. Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

The Defense Department directed inquiries to the Department of Justice and Army, which haven’t responded to comment requests.