Wisconsin man fired for refusing to use preferred pronouns appeals to Trump administration
EXCLUSIVE: Spencer Wimmer, a Wisconsin man, is asking the Trump administration to intervene after he says he was fired for refusing to use preferred pronouns that conflict with a person's biological sex—forcing him, he claims, to choose between his livelihood and his faith.
While the Trump administration has moved to roll back DEI and gender ideology workplace requirements, Wimmer, a devout Christian, argues that private citizens are still experiencing workplace discrimination tied to such policies.
Now, after filing a religious discrimination complaint through the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) to the Trump U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), he said he hopes President Donald Trump will do something about it.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Wimmer said that he had worked hard to be a "model employee" during his five years at Generac and was in good standing with the company, having received several positive performance reviews and promotions. He said he expected to have a long, fruitful career at the power equipment company. That is, until he was suddenly pulled into a meeting with human resources and confronted about his refusal to use someone's preferred pronouns.
'Unlawful Dei-motivated' Workplace Discrimination To Be Rooted Out By Trump's New Acting Eeoc Chair
Wimmer says that his refusal to use preferred pronouns is rooted in his deeply held Biblical, religious belief that there are only two genders and that a person cannot switch between one and the other.
Read On The Fox News App
He explained that he had prior experience working with transgender people and even had a good working relationship with one of his colleagues who was transgender. However, after Wimmer had to clarify with HR that he could not in good conscience use his transgender colleagues' preferred pronouns, he was reprimanded for "unprofessional" conduct.
According to WILL, the firm representing Wimmer, Generac HR representatives told him that his request to refrain from using transgender pronouns on religious grounds "did not make any sense." Wimmer was issued a written disciplinary action note that stated "refusal to refer to an employee/subordinate by their preferred name/pronouns is in violation of the company's Code of Business Conduct and No Harassment Policy."
After an entire month in which he said he felt both targeted and bullied for his religious beliefs, Wimmer was fired from his supervisor role at Generac Power Systems on April 2. According to WILL, he was not allowed to collect his personal belongings and was escorted out of the building.
Wimmer described the entire episode as "heartbreaking."
The Supreme Court Appears To Side With Parents In Religious Liberty Dispute Over Storybooks
"I was asked to choose between my livelihood and my love for God and my beliefs," said Wimmer, adding that it was "very emotional having everything kind of ripped out from under me."
In its complaint to the EEOC, WILL argues that Generac violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. WILL asserts that Generac violated Wimmer's rights despite there being no harassment complaints filed against him.
Cara Tolliver, an attorney with WILL, told Fox News Digital that she believes his case carries a broader significance that could impact Americans across the country.
She said that Wimmer's case puts recent Supreme Court precedent set in a 2023 case called Groff v. DeJoy to the test, challenging the validity of an employer's compelled gender affirmation policy against an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs.
"Employers, I think, have kind of become seemingly fixated on a lot of identity politics in the workplace, including the topic of gender identity," she said. "But it's crucial to keep in mind that even where Title VII may provide some protection to employees against workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of a gender identity, this does not supersede or eliminate Title VII protections against religious discrimination and the fact that religious discrimination is illegal."
Supreme Court Allows Terminations Of Independent Agency Board Members For Now
Wimmer told Fox News Digital that he "never asked Generac to choose between me and then this other individual."
"There was absolutely a way for us to work together and have a compromise where we continue to have a professional environment," he said. "Unfortunately, there are individuals and there are organizations and structures in place that won't let you have compromise. The fact that you have these beliefs is unacceptable to them. So, no amount of compromise is possible."
In response to Fox News Digital's request for comment, a spokesperson said: "We do not comment on employment matters nor comment on pending litigation."Original article source: Wisconsin man fired for refusing to use preferred pronouns appeals to Trump administration
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
27 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Why Trump Has Had Enough of This Republican Congressman
'MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him,' President Donald Trump wrote in a lengthy tirade against Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky who has criticized the President over a number of issues from war with Iran to the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. 'He is a negative force who almost always Votes 'NO,' no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded 'grandstander' who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling 'DEATH TO AMERICA' at every chance they get,' Trump posted on Sunday. He added: 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' Massie responded with a tongue-in-cheek post on X that the President 'declared so much War on me today it should require an Act of Congress.' Massie joined last week with a number of Democratic lawmakers to raise the alarm over potential U.S. military intervention in the Middle East without constitutionally-mandated congressional authorization. While Massie won't face a reelection contest until 2026, Trump has already unveiled a plan to challenge him and further enforce loyalty within the GOP ranks. 'The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard,' Trump added, without naming a prospective primary opponent. 'MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one.' Massie, who is known for his outspoken libertarian views, has survived primary challenges before and told Axios, which reported on the effort to oust him, that 'any serious person considering running should spend money on an independent poll before letting swampy consultants take them for an embarrassing ride.' Who is Thomas Massie? Massie, 54, was born in West Virginia and earned bachelor's and master's degrees in engineering from MIT in the 1990s before turning to local politics in 2010, when he ran and won the race for Judge Executive of Lewis County, Ky., amid the Tea Party wave. In 2012, after then-Rep. Geoff Davis announced his retirement in Kentucky's deep-red 4th congressional district, Massie, who described himself as a 'constitutional conservative,' won the Republican primary in a landslide. When Davis resigned early, Massie won the same-day special election and general election to succeed him, taking office two months earlier than his fellow freshmen representatives elected in 2012. One of Massie's first moves was to vote in January 2013 against party leader John Boehner for Speaker, opting instead to vote for fellow libertarian Justin Amash. (Boehner narrowly won the speakership but would go on to resign in 2015. Amash would go on to not run for reelection in 2020 and temporarily leave the Republican Party after earning Trump's wrath for consistent criticism of the President and supporting his impeachment.) Since then, Massie has made a name for himself by regularly voting against bills, often breaking with his caucus and sometimes siding with Democrats. In 2013, Politico dubbed him 'Mr. No.' In 2016, Massie said he would vote for Trump but do everything he could to 'rein him in' if he acts unconstitutionally. In 2017, Massie tried to explain how the same movement that propelled him into office could also propel someone like Trump, telling the Washington Examiner: 'All this time, I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul searching I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron [Paul] and me in these primaries, they weren't voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a b----- in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class.' During Trump's first term, Massie was among a small group of Republicans who joined Democrats in trying to override Trump's veto of legislation that would block his national emergency declaration at the border in 2019. That same year, he was the sole Republican to vote against a resolution opposing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement targeting Israel, and he was the sole no-vote across both parties on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. In March 2020, Trump called Massie a 'third rate Grandstander' and urged Republicans to throw him out of the party after the congressman tried to force a roll-call vote on a $2 trillion pandemic relief package. The stunt earned rebuke from both sides of the aisle, with former Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State John Kerry posting on social media: 'Breaking news: Congressman Massie has tested positive for being an a--hole. He must be quarantined to prevent the spread of his massive stupidity.' But in a U-turn, Trump endorsed Massie in 2022, calling him 'a first-rate Defender of the Constitution.' In 2022, Massie was the lone 'No' vote on a symbolic measure condemning antisemitism, a move he defended as a stance against 'censorship' but critics described as 'performative contrarianism.' Why Trump wants Massie out Massie was once again on Trump's bad side in 2023 when Trump shared posts on his Truth Social platform that called the congressman a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' and said he 'helped destroy the Tea Party and now he's trying to destroy MAGA.' That didn't stop Massie from endorsing Trump in the 2024 general election after previously backing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the Republican primary. But Trump finally had enough of Massie in March, when Massie voted against a continuing resolution to fund the federal government until September as Republicans worked to pass Trump's massive tax-and-spending legislative package, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' (OBBB). The President took to Truth Social to appeal for a primary candidate to challenge Massie in 2026: 'HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him. He's just another GRANDSTANDER, who's too much trouble, and not worth the fight. He reminds me of Liz Chaney [sic] before her historic, record breaking fall (loss!). The people of Kentucky won't stand for it, just watch. DO I HAVE ANY TAKERS???' Massie brushed off the criticism, telling Politico: 'I had the Trump antibodies for a while — I needed a booster.' He said at the time that he had no intention to cave to Trump's pressure and believed the President's grudge would 'blow over.' When Massie continued to voice loud opposition to the OBBB, which is estimated to add trillions to the national debt, Trump said of Massie in May: 'He doesn't understand government' and 'should be voted out of office.' The OBBB ultimately passed in the House in May, when Massie was one of two Republicans in the lower chamber to vote against it. It has yet to pass in the Senate, especially after Massie found a sympathizer to his concerns about the bill's impact on the deficit in tech billionaire Elon Musk. Trump's latest missive against Massie came as Massie has become a leading voice against military intervention in Iran. Days after Israel launched an attack on Iran, Massie cosponsored a war powers resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna (D, Calif.) aimed at blocking the U.S. government from engaging in 'unauthorized hostilities.' After Trump revealed U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Massie posted on X: 'This is not Constitutional.' While some have categorized Massie's wing of the MAGA base when it comes to the war as 'isolationists,' Massie told CBS on Sunday that he rejects the label, preferring 'non-interventionists.' 'We are exhausted,' he said. 'We are tired from all of these wars.' How is Trump planning to beat Massie? Trump is dedicating campaign firepower to oust Massie. Axios reported that Trump's senior political advisers, Tony Fabrizio and Chris LaCivita, will launch a political action committee devoted to defeating Massie in the May 2026 primary. LaCivita said the PAC will spend 'whatever it takes' to defeat Massie, who according to the team's internal polling was lagging behind the President in terms of support. As of now, only one candidate, Niki Lee Ethington, has announced that she will vie for Massie's congressional seat. Other names being floated, per Axios, are state senator Aaron Reed and state representative Kimberly Moser. 'Massie's long-time opposition to President Trump's working family tax cuts—and really anything to do with President Trump—is coming to an end,' LaCivita said in a statement. 'Thomas 'Little Boy' Massie will be fired.'
Associated Press
34 minutes ago
- Associated Press
How covering your face became a constitutional matter: Mask debate tests free speech rights
CHICAGO (AP) — Many of the protesters who flooded the streets of Los Angeles to oppose President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown wore masks or other face coverings, drawing scorn from him. 'MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests,' Trump posted on his social media platform, adding that mask-wearing protesters should be arrested. Protesters and their supporters argue Trump's comments and repeated calls by the Republican president's allies to ban masks at protests are an attempt to stifle popular dissent. They also note a double standard at play: In Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesters were at times confronted by officers who had their faces covered. And some U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have worn masks while carrying out high-profile raids in Los Angeles and other cities. All of which begs the question: Can something that covers your mouth protect free speech? Protesters say the answer is an emphatic yes. Several legal experts say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' Trump's post calling for a ban on masks came after immigration raids sparked protests, which included some reports of vandalism and violence toward police. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' he asked on Truth Social on June 8. The next day, Trump raged against the anti-ICE protests, calling for the arrest of people in face masks. It's not a new idea. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates warn of a rising number of laws banning masks being wielded against protesters and their impacts on people's right to protest and privacy amid mounting surveillance. The legal question became even more complicated when Democratic lawmakers in California introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks. That came amid concerns ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct. 'The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror,' state Sen. Scott Wiener said in a press release. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable.' 'While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,' McLaughlin said in a statement. State restrictions on mask-wearing At least 18 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, the center says. The laws aren't just remnants of the coronavirus pandemic. Many date back to the 1940s and '50s, when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and Trump's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters. Page also raised concerns about the laws being enforced inconsistently and only against movements the federal government doesn't like. In May, North Carolina Senate Republicans passed a plan to repeal a pandemic-era law that allowed the wearing of masks in public for health reasons, a move spurred in part by demonstrations against the war in Gaza where some protesters wore masks. The suburban New York county of Nassau passed legislation in August to ban wearing masks in public. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, last month sent a letter to the state's public universities stating protesters could be charged with a felony under the state's anti-mask law. Administrators at the University of North Carolina have warned protesters that wearing masks violates the state's anti-mask law, and University of Florida students arrested during a protest were charged with wearing masks in public. An unresolved First Amendment question People may want to cover their faces while protesting for a variety of reasons, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas, said Tim Zick, law professor at William and Mary Law School. 'Protecting protesters' ability to wear masks is part of protecting our First Amendment right to peacefully protest,' Zick said. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the federal government and Republican state lawmakers assert that the laws are intended not to restrict speech but to 'restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks.' Conversely, he said, First Amendment advocates oppose such laws because they deter people from protesting if they fear retaliation. Stone said the issue is an 'unresolved First Amendment question' that has yet to be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court 'has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment.' Few of these laws have been challenged in court, Stone said. And lower-court decisions on mask bans are mixed, though several courts have struck down broader anti-mask laws for criminalizing peaceful expression. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the right to speak anonymously has 'deep roots in the nation's founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies.' Federal agents wearing masks 'The right to speak anonymously allows Americans to express dissenting or unpopular opinions without exposing themselves to retaliation or harassment from the government,' Terr said. First Amendment advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have called the masks an attempt by ICE agents to escape accountability and intimidate immigrants. During a June 12 congressional hearing, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Viral videos appeared to show residents of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts confronting federal agents, asking them to identify themselves and explain why they were wearing masks. U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, decried 'the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain clothed officers and masks' in a June 2 letter to federal officials. Republican federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' ICE acting Director Todd Lyons said.
Buzz Feed
34 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
People Explain Why Conservative Men Go After Liberal Women
Dating across political lines can be complicated, but we've all heard the stories about one particular pattern: Conservative men who actively seek out liberal women, only to spend the relationship trying to change their partner's views and values. So when u/Historical-Body-3424 asked why this dynamic is so common, the responses revealed some uncomfortable truths about power, conquest, and what some men really want from relationships. From strategic convenience to psychological manipulation, here's what women think is really going on: "I saw a TikTok of a conservative man who said he liked dating liberal women because he could be himself and not have to perform hypermasculinity constantly. Apparently, the conservative women he had dated demanded he have a certain persona at all times." "I think a lot of conservative men date liberal women because there are so many liberal women. I live in the Los Angeles area, and I've heard men say if they weren't open to liberal women (and leaving their political affiliations blank or listed as 'moderate' on dating apps), they'd be single without any dates. As far as why they then try to change the women they date? Because they're assholes." "They don't actually want a conservative woman because they don't want to genuinely perform as a traditional man. They want a woman who wouldn't expect the same level of work it would take to truly succeed in a traditional male role. With that being said, if they can 'change' her instead of finding someone who has already formed these views, then they can feed her the parts they want to do and leave out the parts they won't or can't do — like being the sole breadwinner and such." "They don't want women who already want a traditional lifestyle. It's like how men are worried about gold diggers — they're suspicious of women who aspire to be provided for by a man. They would rather trap a woman into the lifestyle because they feel like she did it for them, so, as a bonus, it boosts their ego." "Because they don't actually want a conservative relationship. They want sex before marriage and dual-income households, which conservative women are less likely to prefer over liberal women. They basically want all the benefits but none of the downsides." "They don't think politics are a dealbreaker. I also don't think there are that many conservative men. They might call themselves conservative, but their values aren't conservative, and they don't want to be providers. For example, any woman who wants a traditional relationship based on Christian values is going to tell them to kick rocks." "From my observation, women think more about compatibility and shared values than men do." "It's a challenge to them. A lot of men enjoy conquest, and if there's resistance or obstacles, it's even more exciting for these types to potentially 'win.' I'm not saying everyone who likes a challenge is a creep, but it's overrepresented among these conservative men. They get a jolt of pleasure from bending women to their will — more so than from someone who is subservient to them right off the bat. I've also heard that a lot of men think liberal women are just more physically attractive." "A lot of conservative men also don't consider our political leanings to be 'serious.' We're just silly girls, y'know? Our politics and beliefs aren't real. They're a frivolous, stupid little trend we've jumped on. But for the right man (which, of course, these conservative dudes are), we'll drop everything to pump out their unvaccinated babies and die of listeria from drinking raw milk." "For some of them, I think it's a long-term project to try and break them into submission. It's a challenge and a win, like an 'owning the libs' relationship style. For others, they think they'll have easier access to sex than they would with a conservative woman. In a similar vein, some don't actually like conservative women because they have specific expectations about gender roles. These men don't want to do the whole 'man of the house' or 'breadwinner' thing, so they're seeking out a more progressive woman who won't expect those roles." "They want the wild, fun, kinky, party girl stereotype liberal woman — but to tame and make their own. Someone who'd be down for threesomes, but only with other women. Someone who's into doing all the wild and kinky things in the porn they watch, but will be subservient to them and respect their sexual boundaries while having none of their own. In other words, they think liberal women are potential personal sex slaves who would choose to be such for them, as long as they're tamed." "I have a theory that it's about indoctrinating them in their own special way, based on their definition of a conservative woman rather than the varying views within that community. For example, some conservative women are extremely religious to the point of rejecting certain music or activities they see as offensive to their god. Others are extremely prudish and nun-like because they interpret conservatism as being about the sins of the flesh and modesty. So these men want to be the ones to shape these women according to their unique blend of conservative ideals — ideals of womanhood that serve their fantasies the most. They'd rather do this than try to make it work with a conservative woman who already holds incredibly strong, irrationally devoted beliefs and values that may differ from their own." "From Trevor Noah's Born a Crime: The way my mother always explained it, the traditional man wants a woman to be subservient, but he never falls in love with subservient women. He's attracted to independent women. 'He's like an exotic bird collector,' she said. 'He only wants a woman who is free because his dream is to put her in a cage.'" "It's the same reason why horses are broken, why exotic pet owners keep wild animals, why suburban lawns are monoculture grasses, why land is colonized, why neighborhoods are gentrified, and why space is the final frontier. The act of taming something wild, cutting off all its unrefined natural parts, and grooming it into something refined is an act of power. The completion of such an act is demonstrable evidence that power is real. In short, it's the theft of agency that fuels the drive of conquest." "I think it's similar to the guys who don't bother reading a woman's profile on an app. They like how she looks, and the inside doesn't matter to them." "They want all of the social benefits of hegemonic masculinity, but none of the restrictions. Pathetic." "They don't view women — any women — as actual human beings with actual feelings and thoughts that matter. They take care of us, and we give them household chores, emotional labor, and sex in return. Sweet! They do not view us as equals. A disturbing number of conservative men will keep it from their partners for a long time and actively date women they hate. But they will still marry and have children with women they literally despise because they're expected to get married and have kids. They want the sex on tap and the domestic labor, even if it's coming from someone they hate. That's how valuable women are." Have you dealt with this kind of situation yourself? Maybe you've been the liberal woman in this scenario, or watched friends navigate these frustrating dynamics. What's your take? Is it possible to date across political lines, or are some values just too fundamental to compromise on? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.
