On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2–1 to rescind its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace — a comprehensive document finalized in 2024 that had served as the agency’s principal roadmap for identifying, preventing and responding to harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas (R) and Commissioner Brittany Panuccio (R) voted in favor of rescission, while Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal (D) dissented. The 2024 Guidance was removed from the EEOC’s website shortly after the vote became effective.

Background: The 2024 Harassment Guidance

The EEOC’s 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace represented the agency’s most significant update to federal harassment guidance in nearly 25 years. The nearly 200-page document, developed over several years of analysis and public comment, consolidated prior interpretive guidance and added detailed explanations on what conduct can constitute unlawful harassment under federal law across all protected bases, including race, color, sex, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It also offered more than 70 practical examples to assist employers recognize and mitigate harassment risks in everyday workplace scenarios.  Many of the examples focused on discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which had not been previously addressed with such detailed guidance.

The 2024 Guidance also incorporated developments in employment discrimination jurisprudence, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) decision, which held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The guidance applied Bostock’s reasoning to harassment claims and offered examples of conduct — such as repeated intentional misgendering or denial of restroom access consistent with a person’s gender identity — that the EEOC said could support a claim for unlawful harassment.

Importantly, however, the 2024 Guidance was not binding law.  It functioned as a non-binding interpretive resource explaining the federal EEOC’s view on how existing statutes and judicial precedents should be applied in the workplace.  The 2024 Guidance was adopted by a majority vote of the EEOC as constituted during the Biden administration.

In 2025, portions of the Guidance — particularly those involving gender identity and LGBTQ+ issues — were challenged in a Texas federal court.  The court held that the EEOC had exceeded its statutory authority by expanding the definition of “sex” under Title VII in the guidance and vacated those sections on a nationwide basis. This legal challenge, combined with a change in Commission leadership, prompted the EEOC to reevaluate the Guidance and ultimately rescind it.

What Did the EEOC Rescind?

The Commission rescinded the entire 2024 Enforcement Guidance – not only those sections vacated by the Texas court. Among the notable elements withdrawn from the Guidance were:

  • The EEOC’s interpretations that repeated, intentional misgendering could be harassment actionable under Title VII.
  • Guidance suggesting that denying an employee access to restrooms consistent with their gender identity could constitute harassment.
  • Examples drawn from #MeToo-era concerns and modern workplace interactions meant to help employers identify harassment risks in common scenarios.

Although the rescission eliminates the agency’s comprehensive explanatory document, it does not change federal civil rights laws themselves. Title VII’s text remains the law of the land, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Bostock likewise remains binding on courts and employers. The EEOC itself emphasized in its press release that rescission “does not give employers license to engage in unlawful harassment” and that anti-discrimination laws, including protections against harassment, remain fully enforceable.

Practical Implications for Employers

With the Guidance rescinded, there is no longer a single EEOC document articulating in detail how the agency views specific conduct in harassment cases.  Nevertheless, employers must still comply with Title VII’s prohibition against harassment “because of” protected characteristics. The legal standards for hostile work environment and disparate treatment harassment claims remain governed by statute and court precedent, including Bostock.  Employers should also be mindful that many states and local municipalities have their own civil rights statutes that may provide broader harassment protections than current federal guidance. Employers operating in multiple jurisdictions may need to maintain policies that reflect the most protective applicable standards.

In light of the rescission, best practices include continuing to carefully assess potential risk areas (such as pronoun use and facilities access), consulting legal counsel regarding specific workplace concerns and monitoring future EEOC guidance or court decisions that may offer new or revised guidance.