SB2037 would amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to prohibit an employer from taking action against an employee because they engage in "covered expression" that describes, asserts, or reinforces the binary or biological nature of sex, including pronouns. It also prohibits actions based on an employee's use or request to access a single-sex bathroom or privacy area, and forecloses the defense that such actions are job-related or necessary for business.
Finally, the bill adds retaliation protections to cover these new prohibited practices, ensuring retaliation claims can be brought when an employee is punished for such expression or bathroom-use decisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new unlawful employment practice under Section 703(o) prohibiting actions taken because an employee engages in covered expression about the binary or biological nature of sex, including pronouns. It also makes actions based on single-sex bathroom or privacy-area use unlawful and bars a business-necessity defense.
Who It Affects
Employers subject to Title VII and their HR and supervisory staff; employees who express views about sex, pronouns, or who use/request single-sex facilities.
Why It Matters
Creates a clear standard that expression about sex is protected in the workplace and that privacy-focused facilities decisions cannot be used to justify disciplinary actions, reshaping compliance and enforcement under Title VII.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new protected category within Title VII tied to express beliefs about sex and pronouns. It makes it unlawful for an employer to discipline or take adverse actions against an employee for engaging in covered expression, whether said at work or elsewhere, as long as it relates to the binary or biological nature of sex.
It also prohibits actions against employees who request or use a single-sex bathroom or privacy area, explicitly barring the defense that such actions are necessary for business or job-related reasons. The law would additionally treat retaliation for engaging in covered expression or bathroom-use decisions as an unlawful employment practice, reinforcing the protection against punitive responses to protected speech or privacy-related actions in the workplace.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 703(o) to prohibit employer actions based on covered expression about sex and pronouns.
It bans actions taken because an employee uses or requests a single-sex bathroom or privacy area.
A business-necessity defense cannot justify actions under the new provisions.
Retaliation provisions under Section 704(a) are expanded to cover violations of the new 703(o) protections.
"Covered expression" includes speech, writing, depictions, or ownership of items containing such speech, including pronouns.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section provides the bill’s short title, Restoring Biological Truth to the Workplace Act, establishing the formal name by which the act will be cited in any enforcement or litigation.
Prohibited Unlawful Employment Action
Section 703 is amended to add subsection (o), which makes it an unlawful employment practice to take action against an employee for engaging in covered expression that describes, asserts, or reinforces the binary or biological nature of sex, including pronouns. It also makes it unlawful to act because an employee uses or requests a single-sex bathroom or privacy area, and it removes any defense that such actions are job-related or business-necessary.
Prohibited Retaliation
Section 704(a) is amended to insert the new unlawful practices under section 703(o) into the retaliation framework, so an employer’s action against an employee for covered expression or bathroom-use decisions can be prosecuted as unlawful retaliation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Employees who express views about the binary or biological nature of sex, including those who identify with sex-diverse perspectives, gain stronger protection from discipline or termination for such expression.
- Employees who use or request single-sex bathrooms or privacy areas are shielded from punitive actions linked to these choices.
- HR professionals and compliance teams benefit from a clearer, codified standard for applying Title VII to expression and privacy-related workplace decisions.
- Civil rights enforcement agencies (e.g., EEOC) gain a precise framework for investigating and prosecuting violations of these protections.
- Employers that maintain consistent, non-discriminatory policies can reduce litigation risk by having a defined standard for handling protected expression and privacy in workplaces.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers who currently discipline employees for sex-expression or pronoun usage face potential liability and increased compliance costs.
- HR departments may need to revise policies, update training, and implement monitoring to prevent discriminatory actions.
- Small businesses with limited compliance resources may incur higher relative costs to implement and enforce the new standard.
- Legal departments and insurers could see increased caseloads or policy considerations related to these disputes.
- Courts and federal agencies may experience higher volumes of discrimination and retaliation claims arising under these provisions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill solves the problem of punishing employees for sex-expression by expanding protections, but this creates a policy dilemma where legitimate business needs (privacy, safety, or efficiency) could be seen as incompatible with protected expression.
The central policy tension in this design is balancing protection against discrimination with concerns about speech, privacy, and operational needs in a workforce. By defining and broadening what counts as protected expression, the bill reduces the ability of employers to respond to controversial or nonconforming statements about sex.
At the same time, prohibiting the defense that business necessity excuses discriminatory actions creates a potential friction with standard HR practices that seek to tailor policies to specific roles or environments. Implementers will need to translate these requirements into concrete policies, training, and complaint-handling procedures, while ensuring privacy and safety in shared facilities.
The bill also raises questions about how to evaluate and adjudicate disputes where an employee’s expression intersects with legitimate organizational needs, such as privacy, safety, or operational efficiency.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.