Federal Court Vacates Part of Biden-ERA EEOC Workplace Harassment Guidance
On May 20th, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) confirmed that a federal court has vacated a significant portion of the Biden-era workplace harassment guidelines. A court in Texas determined that the EEOC’s expansion of the definition of the term “sex” was in violation of the law. In this article, you will find a more detailed overview of the decision.
Background: EEOC’s 2024 Guidance on Definition of Term “Sex”
In April of 2024, the Biden-era EEOC updated its workplace harassment guidance for the first time in nearly three decades. Among other things, the update was focused on aligning with the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. That transformative decision held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. As part of the changes, the EEOC drafted guidance stating that actions such as misgendering, denying access to bathrooms corresponding with a person’s gender identity, and enforcing dress codes inconsistent with an employee’s gender identity could all constitute unlawful harassment under Title VII.
EEOC Guidance Was Challenged (Lawsuit Filed in Texas)
In August of 2024, the State of Texas and the conservative political action group the Heritage Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the EEOC’s expanded guidance. They argued that the guidance exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. On May 15th, 2025, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
More specifically, the court in Texas found that the EEOC’s guidance imposed “mandatory standards” that were not grounded in the text of Title VII. As part of the ruling, the judge emphasized that Title VII does not require employers to accommodate gender identity-related preferences, such as pronoun usage or bathroom access. The court found that the EEOC’s interpretation went beyond the scope of the Bostock decision
Understanding the Implications for Federal Workplace Harassment Law
The court’s decision has vacated the portions of the EEOC’s guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity. In doing so, it has created some uncertainty for employers and employers regarding compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws. While the ruling does not change the Bostock decision, it does limit the EEOC’s ability to enforce specific protections based on gender identity and sexual orientation in the context of workplace harassment.
The Bottom Line: Bostock remains the law of the land. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is inherently a form of sex-based discrimination and it is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, the EEOC’s specific examples used in its 2024 guidance—misgendered, denial of preferred bathroom, etc—have been invalidated. As the law is currently being interpreted, discrimination based on gender identity is unlawful, but what exactly that means is not clearly articulated by EEOC guidance or court decisions.
Get Help From a Workplace Harassment Lawyer in Florida
Workplace harassment claims are complicated. If you are an employee or employer with questions or concerns about workplace harassment laws, please do not hesitate to consult with an experienced Florida employment attorney for legal guidance and support.
