Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

EEOC Rescinds Guidance on Workplace Harassment: Employee Safeguards Remain

By Sarah N. Niemiroski & Linda L. Yoder on January 26, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
people in business world

On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted 2-1 to rescind its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace effective immediately.  The recission comes as no surprise, as Chair Andrea Lucas of the EEOC signaled her opposition to portions of the guidance almost a year ago.  Although the development is technically a shift in the EEOC’s approach to investigations of workplace harassment guidance, it does not alter any underlying federal anti-harassment laws, nor does it affect employers’ obligations under any state civil rights laws that prohibit workplace harassment. Employees may still pursue court claims for harassment in violation of Title VII and pursuant to state law. 

History of the 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace

The 2024 Guidance endeavored to address modern workplace challenges such as digital harassment and discussed workplace protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  Specifically, the 2024 Guidance took the position that harassing conduct under Title VII included “denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with an individual’s gender identity” and “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with an individual’s known gender identity.”  

Portions of the 2024 Guidance had already been vacated by a Texas federal court in May 2025, which held that the EEOC’s expansion of the definition of “sex” was contrary to law. The court ordered that the sections of the guidance relating to sexual orientation and gender identity be vacated nationwide. Following that decision, the EEOC labeled and shaded the vacated portions of the guidance on its website.

Link to Recission of the Guidance Has Little Impact on Northeast Employers Recission of the Guidance Has Little Impact on Northeast Employers

Despite the EEOC’s indication that it will not take action based on claims of workplace harassment deemed protected by the rescinded guidance, employers should understand that this decision does not alter their legal obligations to provide a harassment-free workplace.  EEOC guidance, unlike a statute or regulation, is not binding on courts.  Federal law – including interpretations of that law by the U.S. Supreme Court, such as Bostock v. Clayton County –remains unchanged.  This means that unless Bostock is reversed, discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity continues to be prohibited under Title VII.  And in any event, state anti-harassment laws remain in effect. 

Employers operating in states with robust civil rights laws should remember that employer obligations to protect employees from harassment remain, and employers should continue to maintain strong anti-harassment policies and training programs regardless of the EEOC’s recent actions.  Many states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York, explicitly prohibit employment discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

If you have questions about how the EEOC’s rescission of its harassment guidance affects your organization, or if you need assistance reviewing or updating your workplace policies and training programs, please contact a member of our Employment and Labor practice group.

Photo of Sarah N. Niemiroski Sarah N. Niemiroski

Sarah is a member of the firm’s Employment and Labor practice group.  She assists public and private sector clients in a variety of matters, including grievance and interest arbitrations, prohibited practice proceedings, and labor negotiations. Sarah also represents employers before state and federal…

Sarah is a member of the firm’s Employment and Labor practice group.  She assists public and private sector clients in a variety of matters, including grievance and interest arbitrations, prohibited practice proceedings, and labor negotiations. Sarah also represents employers before state and federal courts and agencies with respect to employment matters ranging from employment discrimination and wrongful termination to tortious interference, breach of contract, and wage and hour claims.

Read more about Sarah N. NiemiroskiEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Linda L. Yoder Linda L. Yoder

Linda has more than 25 years of experience advising public and independent schools and colleges on education matters. Linda has worked with many school districts throughout the state on general education, litigation and special education matters. She currently focuses her practice in the…

Linda has more than 25 years of experience advising public and independent schools and colleges on education matters. Linda has worked with many school districts throughout the state on general education, litigation and special education matters. She currently focuses her practice in the areas of special education, investigations of discrimination claims including Title IX, sexual harassment or race discrimination, and representation of schools in administrative and court litigation matters involving such areas as First Amendment rights, student discipline, or contract disputes.

Read more about Linda L. YoderEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Employment Law Letter
  • Organization:
    Shipman & Goodwin LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo