|
APPLIES TO
|
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
Quick Look
- A federal court vacated parts of EEOC harassment guidance, ruling that the EEOC overstepped its authority in how it interpreted Title VII regarding accommodations based on gender identity, including those related to bathroom access and pronoun usage.
- The EEOC’s Acting Chair issued a statement reminding employers that DEI efforts must still comply with Title VII, emphasizing that differential treatment based on protected characteristics remains unlawful—regardless of intent or outcome.
- A nationwide ruling vacates the EEOC’s mandate that employers accommodate elective abortions, narrowing federal obligations under the PWFA.
|
Discussion
There has been recent movement by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on the topics of discrimination, harassment, and accommodation. The following is a brief summary of the most recent EEOC activity impacting employers.
Federal Court Vacates Portions of EEOC Guidance on Workplace Harassment
On May 15, 2025, in Texas v. EEOC, a federal district court in Texas vacated key portions of the Biden-era EEOC guidance on workplace harassment, specifically those related to gender identity. The court ruled that the EEOC overstepped its authority by interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to require employers to accommodate gender identity in ways not explicitly supported by the statute.
The EEOC had previously said that not allowing someone to use a bathroom or locker room that matches their gender identity (e.g., a transgender woman using the women’s restroom) could be considered harassment under federal law. In issuing its decision, the court disagreed with this interpretation, striking down the EEOC’s guidance that defined harassment to include denial of access to bathrooms or sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity. This means that the EEOC cannot enforce that portion of its previous guidance; however, it does not necessarily change existing Supreme Court precedent that said transgender status is protected on the basis of sex under Title VII. Moreover, state and local laws may offer broader protections notwithstanding this ruling.
In addition, the court reviewed the EEOC’s guidance that considered the repeated and intentional misgendering (using names or pronouns inconsistent with an individual’s gender identity) to be harassment under Title VII. The court struck this guidance down too, saying again that federal law does not support this interpretation.
This decision follows Executive Order 14168 issued by President Trump in January 2025, which directed federal agencies to enforce sex-based rights based on biological sex and to remove references to gender ideology from federal policies. For employers, this ruling seems to muddy the waters on what may be considered harassment under federal law. It strips the EEOC of its prior interpretations, but does not directly change existing legal precedent on Title VII itself. Plus, it increases the risk of inconsistency between federal and state or local rules that may provide broader protections for workers. Regardless of what the EEOC does, employees may still pursue private actions against employers for potential anti-discrimination violations.
Amidst EEO-1 Reporting, EEOC Commissioner Issues Statement on Discrimination
In connection with the opening of the EEO-1 data portal on May 20, 2025, Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas issued a public statement reminding employers of their obligations under Title VII, and cautioning companies not to use information about an employee’s race, sex, or other protected characteristic when making employment-related decisions. As part of the statement, Acting Chair Lucas addressed DEI programs, stating that “different treatment based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic can be unlawful discrimination, no matter which employees or applicants are harmed. There is no ‘diversity’ exception to Title VII’s requirements.”
Acting Chair Lucas also referenced the Trump Administration’s Executive Order 14281, which directed federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of the disparate impact theory of discrimination. Lucas confirmed that the EEOC will “fully and robustly” comply with this and all Executive Orders, but warned employers that “under existing law, the fact that a neutral employment policy or practice has an unequal outcome on employees of a particular race or sex … does not justify [a] company or organization treating any … employees differently based on their race or sex.”
Federal Court Blocks Abortion Accommodations Mandate Under PWFA
On May 21, 2025, a judge in Louisiana vacated key portions of the EEOC’s rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), specifically the requirement that employers accommodate elective abortions not tied to a medical condition. The decision, which applies nationwide unless overturned, marks another shift in federal workplace discrimination enforcement under the current administration.
As a result of the ruling, employers are no longer required under federal law to accommodate elective abortions unless medically necessary. In reaching this decision, the court found that the EEOC exceeded its statutory authority, reinforcing that agency rules must stay within the bounds of congressional intent. With the EEOC currently lacking a voting majority, further changes to the rule must come through the courts or a future Commission vote.
Employers must still comply with PWFA mandates related to pregnancy, childbirth, and associated medical conditions, including providing flexible work arrangements, breaks, and temporary modifications—just not accommodations for non-medically necessary abortions.
Action Items
- Review harassment and accommodation policies for alignment with updated EEOC guidance.
- Consult with legal counsel to evaluate DEI initiatives.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
- Monitor future legal developments and regulatory publications.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
