Agreed
I can see your point. She was probably an employee at will. Yes, she was insubordinate but I doubt that at employee orientation she was told that men would be allowed to use the ladies’ changing room—under certain circumstances.
Here in flyover country—save our simple souls—we expect that if the door says `Ladies’ on it, women will be using it and men will be barred. And vice versa.
I expect that’s what her lawyers will be looking at as soon as possible: personnel manuals, training procedures, etc. And I doubt that a Texas jury is going to have much patience with an east/left coast argument using words like “celebrating diversity,” “sexual choice,” ya da ya da ya da, ad nauseum, even in a federal court.