Texas Court Dismantles EEOC Harassment Guidance on Trans Protections

A federal district court in Texas has struck down portions of the EEOC’s harassment guidance, ruling that the agency overstepped its authority by asserting that Title VII requires employers to accommodate transgender employees’ bathroom access, pronoun usage and dress preferences.

The court said the EEOC’s interpretation goes beyond the statute and relevant Supreme Court precedent. As a result, those parts of the guidance have been vacated nationwide.

Harassment Guidance Challenge: How Did We Get Here?

In April 2024, the EEOC issued a 189-page guidance document on workplace harassment. Although the agency characterized the new document as merely a source of guidance that did not “bind the public in any way,” savvy employers knew that straying from it could lead to legal trouble for them.

The guidance defined “sex” under Title VII to include sexual orientation and sexual identity, and it framed several employer obligations around that interpretation. This included prohibitions against misgendering, denying access to gender-aligned bathrooms and enforcing dress codes inconsistent with an employee’s gender identity.

New Administration Brings Change to EEOC

Soon after President Trump took office, he issued an executive order directing the EEOC to rescind the guidance immediately.

And soon after that, he made more changes at the EEOC, such as removing two EEOC commissioners who reacted to the executive order by expressing support for LGBTQ+ workers. Ironically, that move prevented the agency from rescinding the guidance because it erased the quorum needed to formally rescind any guidance.

Legal Challenge Was Inevitable

A court challenge to the guidance was a foregone conclusion.

Even before the guidance was issued, 20 state attorneys general sent a letter to the EEOC to say the guidance – at that point in its proposed form – “would unleash unconstitutional chaos in the nation’s workplace.” The letter particularly objected to the guidance’s take on the use of pronouns and bathroom use in the context of gender identity.

The state of Texas and the Heritage Foundation then sued the EEOC in a Texas federal district court, alleging that the guidance’s pronouncements with respect to bathroom, dress and pronoun accommodations are inconsistent with Title VII and relevant Supreme Court precedent.

In mid-May, the court delivered a ruling that vacated those portions of the guidance.

What’s Wrong With the EEOC Harassment Guidance?

In their suit, the plaintiffs specifically alleged that the guidance:

• is contrary to Title VII
• exceeds the EEOC’s authority to make rules that implement federal laws
• is arbitrary and capricious, and
• is an invalid substantive rule that goes beyond mere “guidance.”

The court agreed that the harassment guidance went too far by banning conduct that is neither addressed in Title VII nor governed by relevant Supreme Court precedent.

The guidance goes beyond the plain text of Title VII and improperly defines unlawful harassment to include denial of accommodation relating to the bathroom, pronoun and dress preferences of transgender employees, the court said.

In so finding, the court said Title VII “remains rooted in a biological understanding of sex” and “does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women.”

The harassment guidance contravenes Title VII insofar as it expands the meaning of sex “beyond the biological binary,” it added.

What the Supreme Court’s Bostock Decision Established

The court also clarified that Bostock v. Clayton County — which held that firing an employee for being gay or transgender violates Title VII — did not extend to other workplace accommodations.

Importantly, Bostock did not redefine what “sex” means under Title VII, the Texas court said, and it even explicitly said it “did not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.”

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. As relief, it vacated the gender-identity portions of the EEOC’s harassment guidance. It specifically pointed out that its ruling applies nationwide.

Nationwide Impact: What Ruling Means for Employers

There is some debate on whether a single federal district court can issue a ruling that applies nationwide, and the Supreme Court is now considering the issue. But for now, the safe route for employers is to assume that this ruling applies across the board.

Here are the most important takeaways:

• Legal requirement paused. The ruling puts at least a temporary hold on any Title VII duty of employers to provide gender-identity based job accommodations related to bathroom use, dress codes and pronoun use.
• Majority of guidance stands. The decision affects only a very small portion of the harassment guidance document. The bulk of the document remains in place.
• Voluntary accommodations allowed. Remember that employers are free to provide accommodations even when not legally required.
• Bostock still stands. The Bostock ruling remains entirely unscathed; the dispute in this case related to the scope of that decision.

State of Texas v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, No. 2:24-CV-173-Z (N.D. Tex. 5/15/25).