On January 22, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) held an open public meeting pursuant to the Sunshine Act to discuss and vote on the rescission of the 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace adopted by the EEOC during the Biden Administration (EEOC-CVG-2024-1; issued 04-29-2024) (“2024 Guidance”). Under this 2024 Guidance, sexual orientation and gender identity were specifically addressed following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020). It contains examples of prohibited conduct such as repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun an individual no longer used as well as the denial of access to a bathroom consistent with an individual’s gender identity.

This meeting comes two days after the issuance of Executive Order 14168, entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which directs all agencies to “remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal or external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology…” Executive Order 14168, Section 3(e) (January 20, 2026). The session opened with statements and two rounds of discussions between Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal and Commissioner Brittany Panuccio. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas made a motion to adopt the rescission of the 2024 Guidance, which received a second motion from Commissioner Brittany Panuccio. Prior to the discussions, Chair Lucas stated that the EEOC had overstepped its authority by issuing the 2024 Guidance. According to Lucas, the EEOC was effectively making legislative rules, despite only having the authority to adopt procedural rules that help implement the legislative rules established by Congress. While acknowledging the importance of combating harassment in the workplace, she spoke of the difficulty of spending “years revising” a document that is no longer serving the public and exceeds the scope of the EEOC’s authority.

Commissioner Kotagal, the only remaining commissioner appointed by President Joe Biden, questioned the necessity of rescinding the entirety of the 2024 Guidance without first allowing a notice and comment period of at least 30 days as set forth in 29 CFR 1695.6, which she argued was required. She urged the commission to take a more targeted approach and moved to postpone the consideration of the rescission of the 2024 Guidance harassment guidelines. During the discussion, Commissioner Kotagal urged the EEOC to consider rescinding only those portions of the guidance addressing sexual orientation and gender identity, and which had previously been vacated by a Texas district court in Texas v. EEOC, 2:24 CV-173 (N.D. Tex. May 2025). She argued that disagreement over specific sections does not explain why the EEOC would go further and rescind the entirety of the 2024 Guidance. Additionally, she reasoned that the Supreme Court has long held that harassment is a form of discrimination and questioned the logic of LGBTQ+ individuals being protected from hiring or firing discrimination but not from harassment. Commissioner Kotagal acknowledged that while she may not agree with the logic or findings of Texas v. EEOC, she still saw no reason to depart from the entirety of the 2024 Guidance and cited concern for women in particular, who the President’s Executive Order purports to protect.

In response to Commissioner Kotagal arguments, Commissioner Panuccio highlighted three distinct reasons for rescinding the entirety of the 2024 Guidance: (1) the 2024 Guidance was impermissible substantive rule making; (2) portions of the 2024 Guidance have been successfully challenged in multiple lawsuits and have been found to be contrary to law and outdated; and (3) the President’s Executive Order 14168 directs the EEOC to rescind the 2024 Guidance. Panuccio also noted that partial revisions to the 2024 Guidance would only serve to confuse the public. She shared a personal experience about encountering a male in a women’s locker room at a gym and emphasized her deep investment in preventing and remedying harassment and protecting women.

Following the discussions, the three seated commissioners held a vote. Chair Lucas and Commissioner Panuccio voted to rescind the 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, and Commissioner Kotagal voted in opposition. The meeting was adjourned following the vote. Chair Lucas noted that monthly summaries of any commission votes would be provided on the EEOC website.

What Does This Mean for Employers

Chair Lucas stressed that the EEOC remains dedicated to safeguarding all employees from workplace harassment but noted that the agency is not currently offering guidance on addressing such issues when they occur. EEOC guidelines are commonly seen as a “safe harbor” for small and larger employers alike. The lack of guidance may leave employers with questions about how to handle allegations of harassment in the workplace, so it is important for them to maintain a clear, written anti-harassment policy that prohibits any behavior that could constitute harassment. Regular anti-harassment training for all employees and managers is also strongly recommended. Should an employer receive a harassment complaint, a prompt and thorough investigation is necessary to understand and address problematic behavior. In the absence of EEOC guidance, it is best to consult with experienced employment law attorneys who can advise on evolving laws and best practices.