This week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) quietly took a consequential step backward for workers’ rights by rescinding its workplace harassment guidance—a move that weakens protections for all employees, and particularly for LGBTQ+ workers.
The decision dismantles guidance that had been finalized in 2024 under the Biden administration after a lengthy and transparent process. That document, spanning nearly 200 pages, was the EEOC’s first comprehensive update to its harassment framework in more than 20 years. It also formally incorporated the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling that extended federal anti-discrimination protections to LGBTQ+ employees.
The guidance provided more than 70 concrete examples of workplace harassment, including a dedicated section addressing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Before it was finalized, the EEOC followed the customary notice-and-comment process, reviewing more than 38,000 public submissions. With last week’s vote, all of that guidance has been scrapped—without public input—and the document has been removed from public access altogether.
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas insisted during the agency’s open meeting that rescinding the guidance would not change how harassment claims are handled. “The EEOC will not tolerate unlawful harassment,” she said, emphasizing that the agency’s enforcement obligations remain unchanged.
But in practice, this rollback matters a great deal. While federal anti-discrimination laws are still in effect, workers rely heavily on EEOC guidance to understand what constitutes harassment and how to respond to it. Employees must typically file a complaint with the EEOC before pursuing legal action, and the agency’s guidance plays a critical role in shaping expectations for both workers and employers. Removing it strips away a key interpretive resource and injects uncertainty into an already daunting process.
The decision also reflects a dramatic shift in the agency’s priorities under the Trump administration. Shortly after returning to office, President Trump fired two sitting EEOC commissioners before their terms expired—breaking with long-standing precedent and eliminating the commission’s Democratic majority. The subsequent confirmation of a Republican nominee restored a quorum and paved the way for changes to agency policy and litigation strategy.
Under Chair Lucas’s leadership, the EEOC has increasingly focused on targeting what she describes as “unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination,” aligning the agency with the administration’s broader campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. In December, Lucas went so far as to publicly encourage white men to report workplace discrimination, suggesting they could recover damages.
Rescinding the harassment guidance also aligns with a broader pattern of rolling back protections for LGBTQ+ and especially transgender workers. A federal court ruling last year struck down the portion of the 2024 guidance that addressed transgender and gender-nonconforming employees, arguing that the EEOC had exceeded its authority. That section had clarified that practices such as misgendering employees or denying access to restrooms consistent with their gender identity could constitute harassment. Around the same time, the EEOC dropped multiple cases involving alleged discrimination against trans or gender-nonconforming workers.
Notably, Chair Lucas had opposed the 2024 guidance from the outset. When it was finalized, she voted against it, objecting specifically to protections for trans and gender-nonconforming workers. Framing her dissent as a defense of women’s rights, Lucas argued that recognizing gender identity in harassment guidance undermined “sex-based” protections, asserting that biological sex is “real” and “binary.”
Yet by rescinding the harassment guidance in its entirety, the EEOC has weakened protections not just for LGBTQ+ workers, but for women and all employees who depend on clear standards to identify and challenge workplace harassment. The rollback leaves workers with fewer tools, less clarity, and diminished confidence that the federal agency charged with protecting them is truly on their side.
In the long run, this decision is not merely a bureaucratic adjustment—it is a fundamental retreat from the EEOC’s role as a strong, proactive guardian of workplace equality.