A federal judge in Amarillo has struck down key components of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) 2024 workplace harassment guidance, ruling that the agency exceeded its authority in issuing protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
In a sweeping decision Thursday, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk invalidated portions of the EEOC’s updated harassment guidelines, which advised employers that actions like misgendering employees, restricting bathroom access based on birth sex, or enforcing gender-nonconforming dress codes could constitute unlawful harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed judge for the Northern District of Texas, concluded that the EEOC’s guidance imposed “mandatory standards” that were not authorized by Congress or clearly permitted by existing Supreme Court precedent. His ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed last year by the State of Texas and the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“The EEOC cannot impose a sweeping new set of mandates on employers without clear congressional authorization,” Kacsmaryk wrote in the 40-page decision.
Background: Guidance Rooted in 2020 Supreme Court Ruling
The EEOC issued the updated harassment guidance in April 2024, citing the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision. In Bostock, the Court ruled that firing an employee for being gay or transgender violated Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of sex.” The EEOC interpreted that precedent more broadly, applying it to workplace practices beyond hiring and firing, such as pronoun use and access to facilities.
But Kacsmaryk found that Bostock did not address whether Title VII requires employers to accommodate gender identity in these additional workplace contexts.
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he stated.
A Deepening Divide Over LGBTQ+ Protections
The ruling highlights the growing legal divide across the U.S. over how far federal civil rights laws extend in protecting LGBTQ+ workers. It also underscores the role of courts in interpreting administrative agency powers in a time of significant policy and leadership changes in Washington.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the decision as a victory for states’ rights and biological definitions of sex.
“The federal government has no right to force Texans to play along with delusions or ignore biological reality in our workplaces,” Paxton said Friday.
The Heritage Foundation, which also filed the lawsuit, argued that compliance with the guidance would force organizations to act against their beliefs.
“This ruling is more than a legal victory. It’s a cultural one,” said Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. “It says no — you don’t have to surrender common sense at the altar of leftist ideology.”
EEOC Leadership in Limbo Amid Trump Administration Shift
The decision arrives as the EEOC finds itself hobbled by a lack of leadership under the second Trump administration. Earlier this year, President Trump dismissed two Democratic commissioners, including Chair Charlotte Burrows, leaving the agency without the quorum needed to formally revise or rescind policy.
Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican and outspoken critic of the EEOC’s 2024 harassment guidelines, has already begun rolling back protections for transgender workers within the agency. In recent months, she has halted the agency’s work on new gender identity discrimination cases and instructed staff to abandon seven ongoing cases on behalf of transgender employees.
Lucas, who voted against the 2024 guidance, issued a statement after the ruling:
“It is neither harassment nor discrimination for a business to draw distinctions between the sexes in providing single-sex bathrooms.”
Trump recently nominated Brittany Panuccio, a Florida prosecutor, to fill one of the commission’s vacant seats. If confirmed by the Senate, the EEOC would regain a Republican majority and potentially shift agency priorities more sharply in line with the president’s policies.
Legal Experts Warn of Uncertainty, Potential Appeals
Although Judge Kacsmaryk declined to issue a permanent injunction barring future EEOC interpretations in favor of transgender-inclusive protections, legal observers believe the ruling may open the door to future challenges and eventually reach higher courts.
“This is likely not the last word,” said Judith Grayson, a Georgetown University law professor. “There’s still considerable ambiguity over how Bostock applies to workplace conditions beyond hiring and firing.”
Employment lawyers also cautioned that despite the ruling, employers remain responsible for managing workplace conflicts and ensuring a respectful environment.
“From a risk management standpoint, employers are still wise to handle gender identity issues with care and sensitivity,” said Tiffany Stacy, a San Antonio-based attorney with Ogletree Deakins. “Legal protections vary widely by state and circuit.”
According to EEOC data, the agency received more than 3,000 charges of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in both fiscal years 2023 and 2024 — a sign of ongoing challenges for LGBTQ+ workers nationwide.
Mixed Reactions Across Advocacy Groups
While conservative leaders applauded the court’s decision, civil rights groups condemned it as a regression in workplace equality.
“The EEOC’s Harassment Guidance reminds employers to do one simple thing: refrain from degrading others on the job based on their identity,” said Liz Theran of the National Women’s Law Center. “This decision does not change the law, but it sends a dangerous message that may embolden workplace discrimination.”
The Department of Justice and EEOC declined to comment on whether they will appeal the ruling.
What’s Next for Employers and Workers
With the ruling taking effect in Texas — and potentially influencing future cases elsewhere — employers are left to navigate a patchwork of federal interpretations and state laws.
“If you assume that a transgender employee has no rights beyond not being fired for transgender status, you are likely construing their rights too narrowly,” said Jonathan Segal, an employment attorney at Duane Morris.
