| Stage | What to do | Planning use |
|---|---|---|
| Understand the stakes | Treat misgendering, meaning referring to someone using incorrect pronouns, as a source of exclusion, anxiety and reduced job performance. | Use it to explain why the work is worth a manager’s time. |
| Know the legal baseline | Title VII bars adverse action against employees for being gay or transgender. | Treat federal law as the floor, then check state and local rules. |
| Update policy and training | Name sexual orientation and gender identity in the policy and train employees on it. | Do this before launching any visible pronoun practice. |
| Make pronouns visible | Offer pronouns in email signatures and introductions. | Keep it an invitation, not an obligation. |
| Handle mistakes | Correct briefly, apologise once, move on. | Give managers a script so errors do not become incidents. |
Figures and practices in this table draw on the Philippine workplace-inclusion write-up on pronouns and Miller Canfield’s summary of Title VII and transgender employees.
Pronouns in the workplace work best when sharing is invited rather than required, backed by a nondiscrimination policy that names gender identity and a simple routine for fixing mistakes. Start with the policy, then make visibility optional.
The stages below follow the order most employers can act in. For the wider programme around them, see how to create an inclusive workplace, which sets pronoun practice within broader culture work.
Understanding the stakes before changing anything
Pronouns are the words used to refer to a person in place of their name, such as she, he or they. Getting them wrong has a cost. A workplace-inclusion write-up from the Philippines notes that misgendering can lead to feelings of exclusion, anxiety, and even reduced job performance, and describes it as a daily reminder for the person affected.
The same source describes the opposite effect: including pronouns in email signatures or during introductions creates safer, more welcoming spaces. That is the practical case for pronoun sharing. It lowers the number of moments when a colleague has to correct someone or stay silent.
This framing also helps with sceptical managers. The argument is about working conditions and performance, not about asking anyone to adopt a position.
Legal footing: Bostock v. Clayton County
What the Court held
Federal law gives protection for gender identity through Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination because of an individual’s sex. In Bostock v. Clayton County, a 6-3 decision issued June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employer who fires an employee because of sexual orientation, or because the employee is transgender, violates Title VII.
The reasoning matters for policy drafting. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, and the ordinary meaning of the statute’s words drove the result. The Court evaluated the ordinary public meaning of Title VII’s terms at the time of enactment and concluded that sexual orientation and transgender status cannot be separated from sex. A violation occurs when an employer intentionally acts based in part on sex, even if other factors are also involved.
The transgender-employee case concerned a worker who initially presented as male and was terminated after telling the employer she identified as a woman. That case was captioned against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Case No. 18-107, and the Sixth Circuit had held that Title VII prohibits firing someone for being transgender. Federal appeals courts were in conflict, which is why the Supreme Court took the cases.
Where the ruling stops
Bostock settles that adverse employment action based on being gay or transgender falls under Title VII. It does not, on the facts described here, spell out rules for everyday pronoun use. The decision addressed firings, so treat pronoun practice as good policy built on that legal footing rather than as a requirement the opinion imposes.
The ruling also has stated limits. Similar federal and state laws were not before the Court and were not the subject of the decision, and religious liberty issues, including the exception for religious organizations, were not raised in these cases. Employers with state or local obligations, or with a religious character, should take advice on those points instead of assuming the ruling answers them.
- Confirm the baseline. Make sure internal materials describe Title VII as covering sexual orientation and transgender status.
- Check other layers. Ask counsel which state or local rules also apply to your locations.
- Record the decision. Keep a short note of what the policy relies on, so later reviews start from the same footing.
Writing gender inclusive workplace policies
After the ruling, Miller Canfield advised that employers should check their policies to confirm they include prohibitions on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, and should train their employees accordingly. That gives two non-negotiable items: explicit wording and training.
A nondiscrimination policy that only says “sex” leaves managers guessing. Naming gender identity and sexual orientation removes the guess and makes complaints easier to raise and assess.
Wording to include
- Named protected characteristics. List sexual orientation and gender identity beside sex, so the policy mirrors the federal baseline.
- Optional sharing. State that employees may share pronouns and that no one is required to. Encouraging introductions with pronouns is the supported practice. Requiring them would force anyone not ready to disclose into a public choice.
- A conduct standard. Say that deliberately and repeatedly using the wrong pronouns after being told is treated as a conduct issue, and explain who to report it to.
- Training and onboarding. Explain pronoun practice to new starters, as the Philippine write-up describes, and train employees on the sexual orientation and gender identity prohibitions.
Policy is not enough on its own. The same write-up stresses that inclusion is not just about having the right policies; it depends on everyday behaviour. The next sections cover that behaviour.
Email signatures and introductions
Adding pronouns to email signatures
Adding pronouns to email signatures is a low-effort way to normalise sharing. Menu names differ between email programs, so check the program’s own help page for the signature editor. The steps are the same everywhere.
- Open the signature settings in your email program or web mail.
- Place pronouns beside the name or on the line beneath it, for example “Jordan Lee (they/them)”, before the job title.
- Save the signature and send a test message to yourself to check the layout.
- Match other profiles if you choose to list pronouns there, so colleagues see one consistent version.
Give staff a template but never mandate it. A department-wide default that appears on everyone’s signature can out someone or misstate their pronouns, so offer the field and let each person fill it in.
Introductions in meetings and onboarding
Team introductions are the spoken equivalent. The Philippine write-up describes encouraging team members to introduce themselves with their pronouns and explaining the practice during onboarding.
Leaders can lead by example and still leave the choice open. A short opener works: “Hi, I’m Sam, I use he/him, and I’m on the finance team.” Anyone who prefers to share only their name can do so without comment.
Correcting misgendering at work
Knowing how to correct misgendering at work starts with a plain definition. Misgendering means referring to someone using incorrect pronouns. A slip is common when a colleague has recently shared new pronouns, and the response matters more than the error.
If you make the mistake
- Stop and correct. Say the right word straight away: “Sorry, they.”
- Continue the sentence. Do not explain at length or ask the person to reassure you.
- Practise afterwards. Rehearse the correct pronouns privately so the slip does not repeat.
Over-apologising shifts attention to your discomfort. A short correction treats the matter as ordinary and keeps the conversation on its subject.
If you hear someone else make it
Use judgement about the setting. In a meeting, a light restatement works: “Just to say, Priya uses she/her.” If the person is not present or might be embarrassed, a private word with the colleague who slipped is usually kinder than a public correction.
When the mistake repeats after the person has made their pronouns clear, a manager should treat it under the conduct standard in the policy. Patterns of small slights are covered further in microaggressions in the workplace.
Facilities and everyday habits
Facilities are the part of a policy that employees meet physically. A conventional male and female sign tells staff which options exist, and where a single-occupancy room is available, neutral signage makes it easy to find without explanation. Pair signage decisions with a plain statement in the handbook about who may use which space.
Signage choices also overlap with access needs, so review them together with disability inclusion in the workplace rather than as separate projects.
Beyond the physical environment, habits carry most of the weight: use a person’s stated name and pronouns in documents, introductions and chat, and correct mistakes the same way each time. Consistency is what makes the written policy believable.
Frequently asked questions
Where else can people list pronouns besides email signatures?
Member organisations described in the Philippine write-up include pronouns in Zoom names, name badges, LinkedIn profiles and email footers. Keep each placement optional.
Did Bostock address religious employers?
No. Religious liberty issues, including the exception for religious organizations, were not raised in the cases the Court decided, so the ruling does not resolve them.
Does Bostock settle state or other federal laws?
No. Similar federal and state laws were not before the Court, so employers should check those separately for their locations.
Is a nondiscrimination policy enough on its own?
No. The Philippine write-up notes that workplace inclusion is not just about having the right policies. Day-to-day behaviour, such as using the correct name and pronouns, is what colleagues actually experience.
