Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics, including those based on “sex,” which includes pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) implements Title VII and investigates violations.
In 2021, the EEOC published a Technical Assistance document, which stated that employers may not deny transgender employees access to restrooms, locker rooms, or showers that align with their gender identity, and may not prevent employees from dressing or presenting in a manner consistent with their gender identity. The document further warned that misuse of pronouns or refusal to use a transgender employee’s chosen name could constitute unlawful harassment. Texas challenged the 2021 guidance and, in 2022, the Court vacated the guidance as unlawful.
In 2024, the EEOC published “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” which expanded on these principles, offering over 180 pages of interpretive material on various forms of workplace harassment, including a comprehensive section on gender identity. This later guidance treated repeated, intentional misgendering and denial of access to sex-segregated facilities aligned with gender identity as per se violations of Title VII.
The State of Texas and The Heritage Foundation, a private nonprofit with an express ideological commitment to maintaining sex-based distinctions in its policies, filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging the EEOC’s June 2021 Technical Assistance document and April 2024 Enforcement Guidance. They alleged that the EEOC improperly expanded the scope of Title VII by redefining “sex” to include not only sexual orientation and gender identity, but also specific obligations for employers to accommodate employees’ gender identity through the use of gendered language, facilities access, and attire. The plaintiffs argued that these interpretations constituted final agency action with binding legal consequences, and that the EEOC failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures before issuing the documents.
Ten days after the briefing for this case closed, President Trump took office and immediately issued Executive Order 14168 “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which rescinded the 2024 Enforcement Guidance. Two then-EEOC Commissioners issued a statement affirming support for LGBTQIA+ workers and arguing that these individuals are protected by federal law and entitled to equal opportunity in the workplace. A few days later, President Trump removed these commissioners from office, meaning the EEOC lacked the quorum necessary to formally rescind the 2025 Enforcement Guidance.
In evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims, the Court first addressed whether the EEOC guidance constituted “final agency action” reviewable under the APA. The Court found that it did, noting that the documents had immediate legal consequences by purporting to set legal standards, including examples of conduct that would “always” or “usually” constitute violations. Citing case law that permits APA review of agency statements that bind regulated parties, the Court held that the EEOC’s documents crossed the line from general advice into legally enforceable rules. The Court rejected the EEOC’s assertion that the guidance was merely “advisory,” emphasizing that the documents used imperative language, and established specific obligations for employers.
The Court then analyzed the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII and found the interpretation contrary to law. The central legal question was whether Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of sex” could be interpreted to require employers to adopt specific gender identity accommodations. The Court began by reaffirming the limited scope of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that terminating an employee because of their sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII’s bar on sex discrimination. However, the Court noted that the Bostock decision explicitly declined to address whether Title VII requires employers to accommodate transgender individuals in other employment contexts, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, dress codes, or pronoun usage.
Relying heavily on the plain statutory text and the Supreme Court’s refusal to extend Bostock beyond termination, the Court held that the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance unlawfully expanded the statute’s reach. It found that the EEOC cannot, under the guise of interpretation, create new obligations or liabilities not authorized by Congress. For example, the Court rejected the EEOC’s position that refusing to use an employee’s preferred pronouns is inherently a Title VII violation, stating that longstanding workplace norms around sex-segregated spaces do not disadvantage one sex over another and that requiring employers to revise these policies would exceed the statute’s mandate. The Court emphasized that Title VII prohibits “discrimination” but does not require “accommodation” of gender identity unless Congress explicitly says so.
The plaintiffs also argued that the EEOC’s guidance conflicted with state policies and imposed significant compliance costs. Texas maintained workplace policies that require dress and bathroom use to align with biological sex, and the Texas Department of Agriculture indicated that it would not alter these policies to comply with the EEOC’s interpretation. The Heritage Foundation also asserted that the EEOC’s guidance would force it to abandon or contradict its internal policies. The Court found both plaintiffs had standing, noting that the EEOC’s guidance required them to either change existing policies or face a heightened risk of enforcement.
Having found the EEOC’s guidance unlawful, the Court considered the appropriate remedy. The plaintiffs sought both vacatur of the guidance (i.e., for the court to vacate the guidance) and a permanent injunction barring the EEOC from enforcing or applying it in the future. The Court granted the vacatur, finding it sufficient to redress the plaintiffs’ injuries, but declined to issue a permanent injunction. It explained that the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm that could not be remedied through vacatur, and noted that both the EEOC and the Trump administration had indicated their intent to follow the Court’s interpretation of Title VII. The Court concluded that the APA required it to vacate the unlawful guidance and that further injunctive relief was not warranted.
In sum, the Court vacated all gender identity–related provisions of the EEOC’s 2024 Enforcement Guidance and ruled that Title VII does not, under current law, require employers to accommodate employees’ gender identity through pronouns, bathrooms, or dress codes. The Court left intact the EEOC’s authority to enforce Title VII as written, including protections against termination based on gender identity under Bostock, but drew a line against extending that decision to require broader workplace accommodations.
Texas v. EEOC (N.D.Tex. May 15, 2025) 2025 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 93206.
Note: This ruling narrows the scope of federal enforcement regarding gender identity in employment policies. The EEOC has labeled and shaded the vacated portions of the guidance on the agency’s website.