EEOC Publishes New Harassment Guidance Addressing Remote Work and LGBTQ+ Harassment
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.24.23
On October 2, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published proposed guidance that clarifies and updates the legal standards and employer liability applicable to harassment claims under federal law, including Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The guidance remains open for public comment until November 1, 2023. If the guidance is finalized, it will be the first guidance on harassment claims that the EEOC has issued since 1999.
The EEOC last released a proposed update to its guidance on sexual harassment for public comment in 2017. However, the guidance was never finalized by the Trump administration. When finalized, this new proposed guidance will supersede five prior guidance documents: Compliance Manual Section 615: Harassment (1987); Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment (1990); Policy Guidance on Employer Liability under Title VII for Sexual Favoritism (1990); Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. (1994); and Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999).
The latest proposed update expands and further clarifies existing guidance related to the statutes enforced by the EEOC, in part by adding several new illustrative examples. The guidance also addresses recent updates in the legal landscape of harassment claims, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), in which the court held that Title VII’s protections extend to discrimination based on a person’s gender or sexual orientation. The guidance accordingly adds gender identity and sexual orientation as categories of protected characteristics. It also provides that harassment includes using gender identity epithets, intentional and repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity (misgendering), harassment because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s gender, and denying access to facilities consistent with gender identity.
The guidance also addresses other developments related to harassment claims by acknowledging the impact of the #MeToo movement, addressing circumstances that have arisen in increasingly pervasive remote work environments, and addressing harassment based on reproductive decisions. The guidance specifies that conduct within a virtual work environment can contribute to a hostile work environment. This can include, for instance, sexist comments made during a video meeting, racist imagery that is visible in an employee’s workspace while the employee participates in a video meeting, or sexual comments made during a video meeting about a bed being near an employee in the video image. The guidance also adds pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, such as lactation, as sex-based protected characteristics. Reproductive decisions, such as decisions about contraception and abortion, are also protected from harassment.
Employers should review the proposed guidance and their current policies, including, among others, those related to harassment, video meetings, lactation accommodations, and LGBTQ+ individuals to ensure that those policies are and will be up to date when the guidance is finalized. Employers may also consider training employees regarding the new aspects of this guidance.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26


