EEOC Rescinds Biden-Era Anti-Harassment Guidance

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has voted to rescind Biden-era anti-harassment guidance. The rescinded guidance had consolidated and replaced multiple prior EEOC harassment guidance documents and was intended to serve as a single, unified agency resource on workplace harassment law. It was anticipated that the EEOC might limit the recission to those portions that pertained to harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status, but the Commission voted to rescind the guidance in its entirety. The vote reflects a continued and marked shift in federal enforcement priorities and removes a key source of interpretive guidance for employers navigating workplace harassment issues.

The rescission does not amend Title VII itself or overturn existing Supreme Court precedent. It does, however, signal a change in how the EEOC intends to approach harassment enforcement going forward and leaves employers without the detailed framework, examples, and hypotheticals the agency had previously offered to address evolving workplace issues.

The Facts

On January 22, 2026, the EEOC voted 2-1 (along party lines, with the Democratic Commissioner dissenting) to formally rescind its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. That guidance, adopted during the Biden administration, was the first comprehensive update to the EEOC's harassment framework in more than two decades and addressed harassment across multiple protected categories, including sex, race, color, pregnancy, and disability.

The 2024 guidance went beyond summarizing existing hostile-work-environment principles and offered expansive interpretations of how harassment could arise under Title VII. For example, the guidance explained that harassment based on "color" could occur between employees of the same race or national origin. The guidance also addressed when off-duty or online conduct, including electronic communications using private devices or social media accounts, could contribute to a hostile work environment if it affected the terms and conditions of employment.

The guidance took the position that harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity could violate Title VII and identified examples of conduct that could be actionable, including the repeated and intentional use of names or pronouns inconsistent with an employee's known gender identity, and the denial of access to sex-segregated facilities consistent with gender identity.

The rescission follows a May 2025 decision by a federal district court in Texas that vacated portions of the guidance addressing pronouns, bathrooms, and dress codes, finding that the EEOC had exceeded its statutory authority by expanding the definition of "sex" beyond a biological binary. After that decision, the EEOC added disclaimers and markings to the guidance identifying the vacated provisions. With a quorum now in place, the Commission voted to rescind the guidance in its entirety.

EEOC leadership has stated that the rescinded guidance went beyond the agency's authority and reflected an interpretation of Title VII inconsistent with the current administration's view of federal civil rights law.

This move fits within a broader recalibration of EEOC priorities, including changes to internal procedures governing policy decisions and a shift away from enforcement positions that expanded harassment protections through agency guidance rather than through regulation or adjudication.

What Has Not Changed

Importantly, the rescission of the 2024 guidance does not change the text of Title VII or Supreme Court precedent interpreting it. In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits discrimination in hiring and firing based on sexual orientation or gender identity. That decision remains binding law.

The EEOC's guidance was nonbinding and did not itself create new legal obligations. Employees may still pursue harassment claims under Title VII, and courts remain free to assess such claims based on existing statutory and case law, independent of the EEOC's current enforcement posture.

In addition, many states and local jurisdictions maintain their own anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws that expressly cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and other protected characteristics beyond those protected by the federal laws. Those laws are unaffected by the EEOC's action.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The EEOC's rescission of the 2024 harassment guidance offers several important considerations for employers:

• Federal enforcement priorities have shifted, but the law has not been repealed. While the EEOC has withdrawn its prior interpretive guidance, Title VII remains in effect, and courts, not the EEOC, ultimately decide the scope of liability in harassment cases.
• Guidance has been removed, increasing uncertainty. The rescission eliminates a detailed roadmap the EEOC previously offered to employers. In the absence of agency guidance, employers may face greater uncertainty in evaluating harassment risk.
• State and local laws remain critical. Many jurisdictions impose broader protections than federal law. Employers should continue to account for state and local requirements when developing and enforcing workplace policies.
• Anti-harassment policies and training still matter. Regardless of enforcement shifts, maintaining clear policies, complaint procedures, and training remains the best practice.
• Litigation risk may shift rather than disappear. Even if EEOC enforcement activity declines in this area, employees may pursue claims through private litigation, and courts may continue to address the scope of actionable harassment under Title VII.
• Proactive compliance remains the best strategy. Employers should review harassment policies, reporting mechanisms, and manager training to ensure they are aligned with current law and workplace realities, rather than relying solely on federal enforcement guidance.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.