The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in January 2026 rescinded Biden-era workplace anti-harassment and discrimination guidance mainly focused on protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and breastfeeding and pregnancy-related issues.
The move, which came after the EEOC achieved a quorum and a Republican majority, follows through on the policy priorities of the Trump administration.
But while the rescission signals a shift in federal enforcement priorities, it does not change the underlying legal framework governing workplace harassment. Employers may still face exposure to employee lawsuits due to binding Supreme Court precedent, differing court interpretations and state and local laws.
What the rescinded guidance covered
The 2024 guidance expanded several protections against harassment and discrimination under Title VII. Although the guidance was not legally binding, it signaled the EEOC’s enforcement approach to investigating and litigating harassment and discrimination claims.
The guidance covered:
Sexual orientation or gender identity — The guidance identified conduct that could contribute to a hostile work environment, including:
- The “outing” of an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity,
- Repeated and intentional misgendering such as calling an employee a man when they identify as a woman,
- Denying access to bathrooms or other sex-segregated facilities consistent with an individual’s gender identity, and
- Harassment and discrimination tied to nonconformity with sex-based stereotypes.
Expanded definition of sex-based harassment — The guidance stated that harassment and discrimination related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions could include conduct tied to lactation, contraceptive decisions or abortion when such conduct is linked to an individual’s sex. These interpretations were incorporated into the broader framework of sex-based harassment under Title VII.
Color or national origin — The 2024 guidance also clarified that harassment or discrimination based on “color” could occur even among employees of the same race or national origin, such as discrimination tied to skin tone.
Why the guidance was rescinded
Opposition to the 2024 guidance emerged soon after its adoption. In May 2025, a federal court in Texas vacated portions of the document addressing pronouns, bathrooms and dress codes. The court found that the EEOC had exceeded its authority by expanding the definition of “sex” beyond what the court viewed as the plain text of Title VII.
After gaining a quorum, the Commission rescinded the guidance in its entirety rather than revising only the disputed sections.
Effect on employers
Although the guidance has been withdrawn, it was never binding law, and its repeal does not insulate employers from harassment claims. Courts — not the EEOC — ultimately determine whether conduct violates Title VII, and private plaintiffs can still pursue lawsuits even when the EEOC declines enforcement.
Importantly, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County remains controlling precedent, holding that adverse employment actions based on sexual orientation or gender identity are unlawful sex discrimination under federal law.
While Bostock did not resolve all harassment-related questions, it continues to shape litigation, and many state and local laws independently impose explicit protections. As a result, employers should remain aware of applicable law, including federal requirements, evolving court interpretations and state and local statutes.
Practical takeaway
The rescission signals a change in federal enforcement posture, not a withdrawal from harassment liability.
Employers seeking to manage litigation risk should continue to maintain clear anti-harassment policies, train supervisors and employees, investigate complaints promptly and account for state and local requirements that may be more expansive than federal guidance.
