Federal Judge Blows Up Biden-Era EEOC Rule That Redefined ‘S”in the Workplace

Federal Judge Blows Up Biden‑Era EEOC Rule That Redefined ‘Sex’ in the Workplace — Here’s What It Really Means

In a major decision with wide‑ranging implications for employers, employees, and civil‑rights law in the United States, a federal judge recently struck down key portions of a Biden‑era Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rule that had expanded the interpretation of “sex” discrimination in the workplace — including protections related to gender identity, pronoun use, bathrooms, and harassment based on sexual orientation.

The ruling — and the broader repeal of the guidance by the EEOC itself — represents one of the most significant legal resets of federal workplace discrimination policy in years. It has employers, workers, legal experts, and civil‑rights advocates debating what protections remain, what authorities federal agencies genuinely have, and how — or whether — federal civil‑rights law should evolve to reflect modern workplace realities.

Let’s break down what happened, why the judge struck down the rule, and what it means for employers and employees across the country.

1. Background: What the EEOC Tried to Do

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency charged with enforcing anti‑discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of “sex.”

Under the Biden administration, the EEOC developed a comprehensive anti‑harassment guidance in 2024 that included several key innovations:

It said discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity could be treated as part of sex discrimination under Title VII.

It said that deliberately misusing someone’s preferred pronouns, excluding them from facilities that match their gender identity, or discriminating against someone for an abortion‑related decision could qualify as unlawful harassment.

It referenced modern interpretations of discrimination trends and workplace needs.

Importantly, the EEOC did not create new law — instead, the guidance was meant to explain how the agency would interpret and enforce laws already written. But that distinction between interpretation and making law became central to legal challenges.

2. The Legal Challenge: States and Think Tanks Step In

Several states — most notably Texas — alongside conservative advocacy groups such as the Heritage Foundation, filed lawsuits challenging the EEOC’s guidance. They argued that:

The EEOC had exceeded its statutory authority by effectively rewriting federal civil‑rights law without proper rulemaking procedures.

Continue reading…