Florida makes it illegal to force pronoun use; Trans employees left defenseless against harassment under new controversial law
Florida – A new proposal moving through the Florida Legislature would significantly reshape workplace rules by shielding employees who engage in anti-transgender conduct from discipline, while also embedding the state’s views on sex and gender into law.
House Bill 641 is a big step up in Florida’s response to transgender issues. It goes from limiting access to health care and public settings to changing the way workplaces run.
Florida has previously put in place a number of rules that disadvantage transgender people, such as limiting adult transgender health care and the well-known Florida bathroom law.
Instead of stopping after those revisions, lawmakers who support the new plan are moving forward with a framework that critics believe would make it difficult, or even impossible, for companies to deal with harassment of transgender workers. The law mostly affects state, county, and local government employers, as well as contractors who do business with the state.
The main focus of House Bill 641 is a wide range of protections for workers who say their acts are based on what the measure defines “deeply held religious, moral, conscience-based, or biology-based beliefs against gender ideology.” The idea says that government employers can’t take “adverse personnel action” against workers for behavior that would typically get them in trouble, such as being suspended, transferred, denied a promotion, or fired.
The bill lists a number of things that are not allowed. Employers wouldn’t be able to make employees use a coworker’s preferred pronouns if those pronouns don’t match the person’s sex. When applying for a job, you would only be able to choose “male” or “female” as your gender. Also, training at work that has to do with gender identity or sexuality would be against the law. This would apply to both government organizations and private companies who work with or get money from the state.
The law goes beyond employment standards by stating the state’s official stance on sex and gender. The measure says that sex is a “immutable biological trait” and that it is wrong to use pronouns that don’t match a person’s sex. It also says that men can’t identify as women and women can’t become men. These comments would be become part of state law, making ideological beliefs official policy instead of just advice for employers.
If the bill passes, it will make it much harder for companies to deal with harassment of transgender personnel. If someone keeps calling you the wrong gender or is aggressive in the workplace, bathroom, or other work locations, you can’t fix the problem. Even if bullying or discrimination is still going on, employers that support inclusive practices would not be able to step in.
The bill’s effects go well beyond what normal government departments do. A lot of institutions could be affected because it applies to governmental subdivisions and agencies. Many hospitals fit these definitions, which has some worried about how it may affect staff training and patient care. To give good care, health agencies and hospitals often need to know about gender identity and sexuality. This includes gender-affirming services and health assistance for LGBTQ+ people. The proposed law would make it illegal to give this kind of training.
Other areas that are open to the public could also be included. The law would cover some airports, libraries, development districts, and locations that are managed by specific governing bodies. In some places, workers could openly discriminate against transgender coworkers or members of the public without worrying about getting in trouble at work.
House Bill 641 changes the focus from regulating how people behave in public to changing how people are held accountable at work. The idea would modify the way discrimination is dealt with in many sections of Florida’s employment by safeguarding anti-transgender behavior and limiting what employers can do about it. It would also strengthen the state’s legal position on gender.
