Wisconsin man fired for refusing to use preferred pronouns appeals to Trump administration
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.
Advertisement
Now, after filing a religious discrimination complaint through the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) to the Trump US 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.
Advertisement
5 Spencer Wimmer says he was fired from his job at Generac for not following the company pronouns rules despite his religious objections.
Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
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.
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.
Advertisement
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.'
5 Wimmer was pulled into a meeting with human resources at Generac and confronted about his refusal to use someone's preferred pronouns.
Google Maps
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.
Advertisement
Wimmer described the entire episode as 'heartbreaking.'
'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.'
5 Wimmer described the entire episode as 'heartbreaking.'
LinkedIn
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.
5 Wimmer claims his personal items were damaged by the company when they were eventually returned to him.
Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
Advertisement
5 Damage was left to one of Wimmer's books after his firing.
Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
'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.'
Wimmer told Fox News Digital that he 'never asked Generac to choose between me and then this other individual.'
Advertisement
'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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
2 hours 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.
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
The GOP wants to turn asylum into a pay-to-play system
The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' now before the Senate takes the current preoccupation with making every governmental relationship transactional to an immoral extreme. It puts a $1,000 price tag on the right to seek asylum — the first time the United States would require someone to pay for this human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that 'everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.' U.S. law incorporates that right, stating that 'any alien … irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum.' Neither makes this right contingent on being able to pay. Bear in mind that asylum seekers in the United States do not have the right to court-appointed attorneys. That means the system already profoundly disadvantages indigent asylum seekers — they can't afford a lawyer, often don't speak English and have no road map for navigating arcane immigration law. The new law would make asylum even more inaccessible for a poor person, in effect, creating two classes of those seeking refuge here. Those wealthy enough to pay $1,000 up front would have their protection claims heard; those unable to pay would be shunted back to face persecution and the problems that drove them from their home countries to begin with. If this part of the bill isn't modified before its final passage, Congress will have piled on to the obstacles the Trump administration has already put in place to block the right to seek asylum. On Inauguration Day, President Trump proclaimed an invasion of the United States by 'millions of aliens' and 'suspend[ed] the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border.' Until the president decides the 'invasion' is over, the order explicitly denies the right of any person to seek asylum if it would permit their continued presence in the United States. Since Jan. 20, asylum seekers trying to enter the United States at the southwestern border have been turned away and, in some cases, loaded onto military planes and flown to third countries — Panama, for example — without any opportunity to make asylum claims. 'I asked for asylum repeatedly. I really tried,' Artemis Ghasemzadeh, a 27-year-old Christian convert from Iran, told Human Rights Watch after being sent to Panama. 'Nobody listened to me …. Then an immigration officer told me President Trump had ended asylum, so they were going to deport us.' On top of the basic fee for asylum seekers, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' would also require an asylum seeker to pay a fee of 'not less than $550' every six months to be permitted to work in the U.S. while their claim is pending. The bill would also impose an additional $100 fee for every year an asylum application remains pending in the heavily backlogged system, punishing the person fleeing persecution for the government's failure to provide sufficient immigration judges. Children are not spared. For the privilege of sponsoring an unaccompanied migrant child, the bill would require the sponsor, often a relative who steps forward to care for the child, to pay a $3,500 fee. Congressional priorities for spending on unaccompanied children who arrive at our borders show a distinct lack of compassion: The bill directs that a $20-million appropriation for U.S. Customs and Border Protection 'shall only be used to conduct an examination of such unaccompanied alien child for gang-related tattoos and other gang-related markings.' Add to these barriers the complete shutdown of the U.S. refugee resettlement program, except for white South Africans; the termination of 'humanitarian parole' for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans; the end of temporary protected status programs that have provided protection to people coming from countries of widespread conflict, and the travel ban that bars entry from some of the world's top refugee-producing countries, including Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iran and Sudan. In the meantime, Trump hypes the idea of selling $5-million 'gold cards' for super rich foreigners who want to buy U.S. permanent residence. When asked who might be interested, Trump replied, 'I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people.' The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' includes $45 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement's detention capacity (by my calculations, that would more than triple capacity). It also specifies $14.4 billion for ICE transportation and removal operations, $46.5 billion for the border wall and $858 million to pay bonuses to ICE officials. With all the money Congress is prepared to spend, it's a wonder the bill didn't add a few dollars for sanding down the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty and re-chiseling it to say, 'Give me your rich and well-rested … yearning to breathe free.' Bill Frelick is refugee rights director at Human Rights Watch and the author of the report ''Nobody Cared, Nobody Listened': The US Expulsion of Third-Country Nationals to Panama.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Banning Palestine Action may be ‘escalation too far', says Labour peer
Banning Palestine Action may be 'escalation too far', says Labour peer Plans to ban protest group Palestine Action would mark a very serious step that may go too far, a former shadow attorney general has said. Baroness Shami Chakrabarti told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that it is 'one thing' to be a threat to property, or to be a nuisance, but it is 'another thing altogether' for a whole group to be proscribed as terrorists. She said: 'From what I can tell, this is a militant protest group that engages in direct action and that includes criminality, no question, but to elevate that to terrorism so anybody who attends a meeting, or who promotes the organisation, or is loosely affiliated with it, is branded a terrorist – that is a serious escalation I think.' The former director of the Liberty human rights group added: 'No doubt the Home Secretary will come to Parliament today and she will explain her reasoning and announce what she is actually going to do. ADVERTISEMENT 'I think this is a very serious step and I would share the concerns of Amnesty International, of Liberty, my former group, and others that this may be an escalation too far.' The Labour peer's concerns come as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper will update Parliament on Monday on the Government's plan to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. The group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on Friday morning. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being investigated by counter-terror police. Meanwhile, a protest in support of Palestine Action is due to take place in Westminster on Monday. ADVERTISEMENT Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said he was 'shocked and frustrated' at the move supporting the 'organised extremist criminal group'. He said that until the group is proscribed the force has 'no power in law' to prevent the protest taking place, adding that breaches of the law would be 'dealt with robustly'. In a statement on Sunday, Sir Mark said: 'I'm sure many people will be as shocked and frustrated as I am to see a protest taking place tomorrow in support of Palestine Action. The act of vandalism committed at RAF Brize Norton is disgraceful. Our Armed Forces represent the very best of Britain and put their lives on the line for us every day. It is our responsibility to support those who defend us. — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 20, 2025 'This is an organised extremist criminal group, whose proscription as terrorists is being actively considered. ADVERTISEMENT 'Members are alleged to have caused millions of pounds of criminal damage, assaulted a police officer with a sledgehammer and last week claimed responsibility for breaking into an airbase and damaging aircraft. 'The right to protest is essential and we will always defend it but actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest.' A spokesperson for Palestine Action previously accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our Government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' Cabinet minister Jonathan Reynolds said he could not rule out the possibility of a foreign power being behind Palestine Action. ADVERTISEMENT The Business and Trade Secretary told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg: 'It is extremely concerning they gained access to that base and the Defence Secretary is doing an immediate review of how that happened. 'The actions that they undertook at Brize Norton were also completely unacceptable and it's not the first. It's the fourth attack by that group on a key piece of UK defence infrastructure.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company the Wagner Group. Pro-Palestinian activists broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire (Palestine Action/PA) On Sunday, former justice secretary Lord Charlie Falconer said vandalising aircraft at RAF Brize Norton would not solely provide legal justification for proscribing the group. He told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: 'I am not aware of what Palestine Action has done beyond the painting of things on the planes in Brize Norton, they may have done other things I didn't know. 'But generally, that sort of demonstration wouldn't justify proscription so there must be something else that I don't know about.' But former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf said the Government was 'abusing' anti-terror laws against pro-Palestine activists, as tens of thousands of protesters marched in London on Saturday. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. The Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe Palestine Action, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman also said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. Palestine Action has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire.
