The drop-down gender options on a form, an offhand conversation about a co-worker, a learning and development module that reads “action required,” a social media post made off the clock: What do all of these things have in common? Under a recently proposed Florida law, they all may be subject to legal scrutiny if they involve a transgender individual at a public employer, nonprofit organization or a company receiving state funding.
The Freedom of Conscience in the Workplace Act was first introduced in 2025 before it died in committee. But the bill, sponsored by Rep. Rachel Plakon, was reintroduced in the Florida House in December — and has so far survived, with a separate, “companion bill” making its way in the Senate.
The bills bar employers from accommodating “gender ideology preferences” and from taking adverse employment actions against workers who don’t believe in gender identity or “gender ideology.” They also bar Florida employers from requiring colleagues to use the correct pronouns of a transgender worker.
At the crux of the bill is the statement that it is Florida’s policy “that a person’s sex is an immutable biological trait and that it is false to ascribe to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person’s sex.”
Debra Leder, a partner in Akerman's labor and employment practice group, said that this kind of legislation would align Florida with the federal administration regarding its approach to gender identity and pronoun use at work, and generally “represents a significant shift from previous federal guidance and from the direction of many other states and localities that have expanded LGBTQ+ protections,” Leder told HR Dive via email.
Additionally, the bill is in line with other Florida laws affecting LGBTQ+ people when it comes to bathroom access, literature and healthcare, Leder said.
If passed, the bill will go into effect July 1, 2026.
What would HB641 mean for Florida workplaces?
Per a blog post by Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney law firm, if the Freedom of Conscience in the Workplace Act passed, certain Florida employers could no longer:
- Provide a nonbinary gender option on workplace materials
- Require employees or contractors to refer to their co-workers with their correct pronouns if they are different from those for their sex assigned at birth
- Take adverse action against an employee or contractor who opposes “gender ideology,” whether that view is expressed at work or elsewhere, such as via social media or at a protest
- Require any kind of LGBTQ+-related training or instruction for employees or contractors
Kelly Kolb, a shareholder of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney’s labor and employment practice who is based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, told HR Dive that this proposed act would apply to public employers as well as nonprofits or private employers receiving Florida state funding.
While known by most Fortune 500 leaders for its annual Corporate Equality Index, the Human Rights Campaign has had its eye on legislation targeting transgender people, often at work. HRC has also sought to advance LGBTQ+ causes in Florida, where it has tracked statewide anti-trans moves.
“Gov. Ron DeSantis and extremist legislators in Florida are some of the most anti-LGBTQ+ politicians in America,” HRC President Kelley Robinson said in a 2023 statement, stating that DeSantis has made “demonizing” LGBTQ+ Floridians “the center of his legislative agenda.”
In light of HB 641, HRC Senior Director of Workplace Equality RaShawn Hawkins told HR Dive via email that the organization’s research suggests LGBTQ+ workers are dealing with a “heightened level of fear in this hostile political moment” and stated that about half of recent survey respondents reported being less open about their identity compared to last year.
“When lawmakers restrict basic workplace respect, they help create work environments of conflict and fear,” Hawkins said.
What would HB 641 mean for Florida HR professionals?
The law could “make workplaces feel less inclusive for transgender and non-binary employees, potentially impacting morale, retention, and recruitment,” Leder said, and because it would protect workers who object to using someone’s correct pronouns, it could increase tension and complaints from all kinds of employees.
“For example, public employees who intentionally misgender colleagues could be insulated from discipline or termination, and may be able to opt out of professional conduct training on topics of sexual orientation or gender identity, based on religious, moral, or biological grounds — even if this creates a potentially hostile work environment for others,” Leder said.
Even with the bill’s limitations, it “might ultimately influence private-sector employment, just as the current bill appears to extend recent laws affecting public school personnel to a broader base of public employees,” Leder said.
“In short, this bill would require HR to walk a tightrope, balancing personal beliefs with professionalism and inclusion,” she said.
A degree of legal uncertainty exists around the Freedom of Conscience in the Workplace Act, however. The law would likely face court challenges, such as claims of violating the Florida Civil Rights Act. While this state law doesn’t explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination, it has been interpreted in line with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Leder said.
She added that some parts of Florida have laws on the books explicitly protecting against gender identity-related discrimination in private employment and housing.
While the bill would put Florida in step with the White House, Leder said, “with legal challenges likely and a widening gap between personal beliefs and workplace respect, the courts may ultimately determine the reach of these new rules.”
Ultimately, Hawkins’ view as a leader at HRC is that when DEI is targeted, “stigma rises, trust erodes, and productivity suffers” at work.
“Clarity and respect aren’t political — they’re foundational to a stable, high-performing workplace,” Hawkins continued. “Businesses succeed when workers feel safe, heard and valued — not when they’re forced into silence.”
HR Dive reached out to Rep. Plakon for comment, and did not hear back by the time of publication.
