Discrimination Protection Rollback: Will Iowa Start a State Trend?

Author: Helena Oroz, Brightmine Senior Legal Editor 

State and local anti-discrimination laws often filter to the back of the national consciousness, if they are even thought of at all. Of course, they matter to the people who live and work in a particular jurisdiction. But otherwise, who is thinking about state or local laws (other than lawyers and HR folks adding them to their one-more-thing-I-have-to-check-for-compliance list)?

Well, their time may have come - in some unexpected ways. For years, cities, counties and states have attempted to fill gaps left by federal employment laws to protect their constituents. Now, certain jurisdictions may be moving in the opposite direction. 

While states like California and New York began to include sexual orientation in their employment discrimination laws in the 1970s and 1980s, gender identity protections didn't make an appearance until 1993, in Minnesota's Human Rights Act.

Currently, 24 states, the District of Columbia, and many smaller jurisdictions prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and/or gender expression by statute. Now, at least one state has officially rolled those protections back, soon bringing that number down to 23.

Iowa bill SF 418 sped through the state's legislative process in a week's time, from introduction to signature. Governor Kim Reynolds signed the bill into law on Friday, February 28, 2025, making Iowa the first state to remove gender identity protections from its state civil rights code.   

As a result, effective July 1, 2025, gender identity will no longer be a protected characteristic under the Iowa Civil Rights Act of 1965 (ICRA). The ICRA prohibits Iowa employers with four or more employees from discriminating against employees and job applicants based on certain legally protected attributes. Remaining protected characteristics under state law will be age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion and disability.

Additionally, terms like "sex," "female" and "male" in Iowa state laws must be construed "with regard to a person's biological sex." SF 418 defines a "female" in terms of producing ova and a "male" in terms of producing sperm. The law provides that others, described as those "born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of disorder or difference of sex development," must be afforded "protections and accommodations" under state and federal disability law. SF 418 does not further define or explain this category.

While no other state to date has taken Iowa's approach with respect to deleting a protected class, these provisions closely resemble those in a controversial 2023 Kansas law that similarly define men and women in terms of reproduction.

Multiple states have bills pending that concern similar definitions, as well as issues like bathroom access and pronoun use, following President Trump's January 20, 2025, Executive Order on "gender ideology."

At least one state has a bill pending that, similar to Iowa's SF 418, would excise gender identity from state law. Oregon HB 2439, introduced January 21, 2025, proposes to remove gender identity from a slew of state statutes, including the state's employment discrimination and wage discrimination laws (although the likelihood of such a bill passing in Democratically controlled Oregon is low).

More such bills are sure to follow. As always, employers need to remain vigilant of changes in their jurisdictions. Here are some things that employers should keep in mind:

• Federal law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. In 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the US Supreme Court held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some states may attempt to create certain gaps in coverage, but federal law is the law of the entire land - full stop.
• Keep an eye on local laws.  Other states will likely follow Iowa's lead. As state law in this and other areas becomes ever more fractured, it's possible that there will be more action on the local front.
• Employers in "roll back" states will need to make some choices. Employers in jurisdictions impacted by these changes are going to have to make a call - change policies, job applications, handbooks and the like based on these developments, or keep things status quo? Employers will need to determine what they can live with, and how they want to show up in the world.