New England Biz Law Update
A federal court has vacated portions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) guidance on harassment protections for LGBTQ+ employees.
The ruling, issued earlier this month by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, determined that the EEOC exceeded its statutory authority in its interpretation of Title VII protections.
The EEOC updated its workplace harassment guidance in April 2024 — the first comprehensive update in 25 years. The guidance expanded protections by specifying what could constitute illegal, sex-based harassment under Title VII, including repeatedly misgendering employees, denying bathroom access aligned with their gender identity, or prohibiting employees from wearing clothing consistent with their gender identity.
The State of Texas and the Heritage Foundation challenged these updates. Kacsmaryk granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, striking down all portions of the guidance that defined “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” along with the specific harassment examples related to transgender employees.
The court’s opinion held that the EEOC’s guidance “contravenes Title VII’s plain text by expanding the scope of ‘sex’ beyond the biological binary” and improperly defined discriminatory harassment to include “failure to accommodate a transgender employee’s bathroom, pronoun, and dress preferences.” Kacsmaryk determined that these interpretations went beyond both the text of Title VII and the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock v. Clayton County.
Context and background
The ruling comes in the wake of significant shifts in federal policy.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14168, which established that the federal government recognizes only two genders — male and female — and instructed the EEOC to rescind guidance inconsistent with this position.
Despite this ruling, the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision remains controlling law. Bostock established that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of sex discrimination and therefore violates Title VII.
However, courts across the country have differed on whether Bostock extends to issues such as bathroom access, locker rooms, dress codes, and pronoun usage in the workplace. The Texas court’s ruling reflects a narrower interpretation of Bostock, limiting its application to hiring and firing decisions rather than broader workplace accommodations.
Looking forward
The ruling highlights the ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding workplace protections for transgender and nonbinary workers.
Employers should consider how to create discrimination- and harassment-free workplaces and stay current on any state or local laws that may provide broader protections.
