Newly appointed EEOC Chairperson Lucas dissented from portions of the Biden Administration’s earlier EEOC Harassment Guidance requiring protections for transgender workers, and also portions of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) that require companies to reasonably accommodate employees who choose to have an abortion. Although the EEOC currently lacks a quorum necessary to change this guidance, a couple of federal court judges recently made rulings on the subjects. A federal judge in Louisiana in May ordered the EEOC to remove requirements in its PWFA rules that require companies to reasonably accommodate employees who choose to have an abortion. The ruling concludes that the EEOC exceeded its authority in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, and certain religious groups argued the rule violated their rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. These cases are Louisiana v. EEOC, No. 2:24-cv-00629, W.D. La. 5/21/25, and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC, No. 2:24-cv-00691, W.D. La. 5/21/22.
A federal judge in Texas has vacated portions of the EEOC Harassment Guidance that include LGBTQ+ workplace protections. The Texas court found the EEOC Guidance, issued in April of 2024, is inconsistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and went beyond Supreme Court precedent. The same judge had previously struck down guidelines addressing workplace bathroom, dress code, and locker room rules. He also ruled against the EEOC guidance that stated an employer using a pronoun inconsistent with the worker’s known gender identity was sex-based discrimination under Title VII. He found the Guidance contravened Title VII’s plain text by expanding the scope of sex beyond the biological binary: “male and female.” State of Texas v. EEOC, No. 2:24-cv-00173, N.D. Tex. 5/15/25. In a January 20, 2025, executive order, President Trump directed federal agencies to recognize only two sexes.
Editor’s Note: The courts have not yet reached a consensus on these issues, and it should be noted that the two district court opinions were before judges that have not been sympathetic to the prior administration’s interpretations of the law. The bottom line is while the federal government will not enforce the employee protection theories in the struck-down Guidance from the previous administration, employers can still face lawsuits with private plaintiffs arguing these concepts. Also note that issues associated as to what a “related medical condition” tied to pregnancy and childbirth means, is highly controversial and it will take a long time for the courts to resolve.
This article is part of our July 2025 Newsletter.
View the newsletter online
Download the newsletter as a PDF
