The EEOC has shifted its enforcement focus to prioritize claims that pit religious objections against gender‑identity protections. The agency rescinded April 2024 guidance that had recognized misgendering and facility denial as gender‑identity harassment and has since reached resolutions in cases involving requests to use "biological" pronouns and demands for women‑only locker rooms. Legal experts warn that litigation and state laws will shape outcomes, and employers should actively engage in accommodation processes, review policies, and consult counsel.
EEOC Shifts Focus: Religious Objections, ‘Biological’ Pronouns and Single‑Sex Facilities Drive New Enforcement
Gender neutral signs are posted in a hotel's public restrooms on May 10, 2016, in Durham, N.C.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has signaled a notable policy shift under the current administration, prioritizing enforcement matters that raise conflicts between religious objections and gender‑identity protections. Since January 2025 the agency has rescinded prior guidance and pursued recent investigations that frame some pronoun and single‑sex facility disputes as religious‑accommodation or sex‑discrimination issues rather than solely as gender‑identity harassment.
Background: The Guidance Reversed
In April 2024 the EEOC issued enforcement guidance recognizing harassment based on gender identity — including misgendering, repeated comments about a gender‑nonconforming appearance, and denial of access to facilities that align with an individual's gender identity — following the Supreme Court's Bostock v. Clayton County ruling. That guidance was rescinded in January 2025 after Andrea Lucas became acting chair and publicly opposed the document.
Recent Agency Actions
Two recent agency resolutions illustrate the new approach. The EEOC announced an agreement with Generac Power Systems after finding the employer failed to fully engage in the reasonable accommodation interactive process when an employee requested to use what they described as "biological pronouns" for a transgender colleague. The company agreed to a monetary settlement and to update policies and training on handling religious‑accommodation requests.
Separately, the city of O'Fallon, Illinois, resolved an EEOC claim alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. The agency said its investigation found the city "subjected an employee to harassment when it failed to provide a sex‑designated locker room for use only by women, and then disciplined her" for requesting the designation. The resolution included a five‑year agreement with nonmonetary relief, such as labeling locker rooms and shower facilities "Men" and "Women."
Legal Landscape And Uncertainty
Legal experts note the EEOC's position marks a departure from the prior administration's interpretation and raises complex questions about how Title VII's protections for sex and for religious exercise interact. More than 20 states and numerous local jurisdictions retain laws or policies that explicitly prohibit gender‑identity discrimination, meaning employers face overlapping and sometimes conflicting obligations depending on location.
To date, the agency's new posture has not been definitively resolved by the courts. Observers expect litigation over these issues to move through federal appeals courts and potentially reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which could clarify whether Title VII's protections represent a floor that states and employers may build upon or whether other limits apply. Until higher courts speak, uncertainty about the precise contours of employer obligations will remain.
Practical Guidance For Employers
Employment lawyers advise employers to approach disputes by engaging in a thoughtful accommodation process whenever a protected objection arises. Practical measures can include temporary reassignment of shifts, changing work locations or team assignments to reduce contact, and offering single‑occupancy or gender‑neutral facilities. Importantly, the EEOC faulted Generac for not fully engaging in the interactive accommodation process, rather than for denying any particular requested accommodation.
Employers should also review and update policies, provide targeted training for managers on handling competing rights, and consult counsel early when conflicts emerge. There is no risk‑free option: decisions will involve balancing the legal risks associated with religious‑belief protections and gender‑identity protections until courts provide clearer rules.
What To Watch
Key developments to monitor include further EEOC enforcement actions, state and local legal changes, and federal court rulings that could define the interplay between religious accommodations and gender‑identity protections under Title VII. Employers should maintain adaptable policies and be prepared to respond quickly as the legal landscape evolves.
Help us improve.
