In its recent decision in Texas v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “Court”) held that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) cannot require employers to provide accommodations for transgender employees when it comes to bathroom access, dress codes and the use of pronouns, and that Title VII’s definition of “sex” does not apply to sexual orientation and gender identity.
Background
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against an employee on the basis of “sex.” In 2021, the EEOC issued guidance stating that employers cannot deny employees equal access to bathrooms, locker rooms or showers that correspond to that employee’s gender identity; prohibit a transgender person from dressing or presenting consistent with that person’s gender identity; or intentionally or repeatedly using the wrong name or pronouns to refer to a transgender employee. But, in 2022, the State of Texas sued the EEOC, and this guidance was vacated.
In 2024, the EEOC again issued guidance, but this time stated the guidance would not have the force and effect of law and it would not bind the public in any way. This guidance defined “sex-based harassment” to include harassment based on an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity was expressed, repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity and denial of bathroom access or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity. For more information on the 2024 guidelines, see this post.
After taking office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The order directed the EEOC to immediately rescind its 2024 guidelines, but then-Commissioners of the EEOC (“Commissioners”) instead affirmed their support for LGBTQI workers. Shortly thereafter, President Trump removed the Commissioners, but as a result, the EEOC lacked the quorum necessary to formally rescind the guidance in accordance with Executive Order 14168.
The Court’s Decision
In August 2024, the State of Texas and the Heritage Foundation filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the 2024 EEOC guidance. They argued that it was contrary to law, exceeded the EEOC’s statutory rulemaking authority, was arbitrary and capricious and an invalid substantive rule that the EEOC failed to publish in the Federal Register.
On May 15, 2025, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the same judge on the 2022 case, ruled that the 2024 enforcement guidelines lack the statutory and jurisprudential authority to expand Title VII’s definition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Judge Kacsmaryk interpreted previous Supreme Court jurisprudence as defining “sex” as biological distinctions between male and female rather than homosexuality and transgender status. Additionally, he ruled that defining discriminatory harassment to include bathroom access, pronouns and dress code applicability to transgender employees is in direct contravention to Title VII’s plain text and that Title VII does not prohibit “employment policies that protect the inherent differences between men and women.” Thus, he vacated the gender-identity related portions of the EEOC’s guidance, which include all language defining sex, to include sexual orientation and gender identity, harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity and sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class.
Practical Takeaways
- Employers should be cautious when approached with sex-based harassment claims.
- Employers should work with counsel to evaluate their specific situations and exposure to risk and liability.
- Employers still need to consider any state laws that may apply.
- Employers should continue to monitor the potential for the Court’s decision to be appealed.
If you have questions or would like more information about this topic, please contact:
- Jon Rabin at (248) 457-7835 or jrabin@hallrender.com; or
- Your primary Hall Render contact.
Special thanks to Oona Demko, Summer Associate, for her assistance in the preparation of this article.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot give legal advice outside of an attorney-client relationship.
