{"id":9882,"date":"2026-02-23T04:10:54","date_gmt":"2026-02-23T04:10:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/eeoc-issues-new-enforcement-guidance-on-workplace-harassment\/"},"modified":"2026-02-23T04:10:54","modified_gmt":"2026-02-23T04:10:54","slug":"eeoc-issues-new-enforcement-guidance-on-workplace-harassment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/eeoc-issues-new-enforcement-guidance-on-workplace-harassment\/","title":{"rendered":"EEOC Issues New Enforcement Guidance on Workplace Harassment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div id=\"contentSummaryCollapse\" style=\"--intro-p-height: 10.3125rem;\">\n<div class=\"inner-collapse\">\n<p>On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (\u201cEEOC\u201d) published its long-awaited <a href=\"https:\/\/www.eeoc.gov\/laws\/guidance\/enforcement-guidance-harassment-workplace\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace<\/a> (the \u201cGuidance\u201d). The Guidance\u2014the first issued by the EEOC on workplace harassment since 1999\u2014presents the Commission\u2019s legal analysis of the standards applicable to workplace harassment and employer liability under the federal antidiscrimination laws, including by providing over 70 examples of harassment. The Guidance addresses emerging workplace issues such as online and virtual harassment, workplace protections for harassment based on sex, including medical conditions related to pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as the interplay between harassment claims and religion-based rights. The Guidance is effective immediately and supersedes several prior EEOC guidance documents. On May 13, a group of state attorneys general filed a complaint against the EEOC seeking to enjoin the Guidance on the grounds that it impermissibly extends Title VII\u2019s protections against sex-based discrimination.<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *<\/p>\n<p>Background. The Guidance is the result of a seven-year effort by the EEOC to modernize its prior workplace harassment guidance. The final guidance was approved by the EEOC by a partisan vote of 3-2. The Guidance presents the EEOC\u2019s legal analysis of \u201cstandards for harassment and employer liability applicable to claims of harassment under the equal employment opportunity (EEO) statutes enforced by the Commission,\u201d including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Guidance acknowledges that it does not have the force of law, and \u201cdo[es] not obviate the need for the EEOC \u2026 to consider the facts of each case and applicable legal principles when exercising their enforcement discretion.\u201d The Guidance is effective immediately, and supersedes the guidance issued by the EEOC from 1987 to 1999.<\/p>\n<p>Characteristics Protected by the EEO Laws. The Guidance first details the Commission\u2019s position as to what qualifies as a characteristic that is protected by the EEO laws, including:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Sex-Based Harassment<b> <\/b>under Title VII<b> <\/b>includes, but is not limited to, harassment based: \u201con pregnancy, childbirth, or related medication conditions,\u201d which \u201ccan include issues such as lactation; using or not using contraception; or deciding to have, or not to have, an abortion.\u201d This type of harassment also \u201cincludes harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed,\u201d which can include: \u201cepithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity; physical assault due to sexual orientation or gender identity; outing (disclosure of an individual\u2019s sexual orientation or gender identity without permission); harassing conduct because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person\u2019s sex; repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual\u2019s known gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual\u2019s gender identity.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Age-Based Harassment under the ADEA includes \u201charassment based on stereotypes about older workers, even if they are not motivated by animus, such as pressuring an older employee to transfer to a job that is less technology-focused because of the perception that older workers are not well-suited to such work or encouraging an older employee to retire.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Disability-Based Harassment under the ADA includes \u201charassment based on stereotypes about individuals with disabilities in general or about an individual\u2019s particular disability\u201d; \u201charassment based on traits or characteristics linked to an individual\u2019s disability, such as how an individual speaks, looks, or moves\u201d; \u201charassment because of an individual\u2019s request for, or receipt of, reasonable accommodation,\u201d or \u201cbecause an individual is regarded as having an impairment even if the individual does not have an actual disability;\u201d and harassment \u201cbased on the disability of an individual with whom they are associated,\u201d for example, taking leave to care for a family member with \u201clong COVID that meets the ADA\u2019s definition of disability.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Perception-Based Harassment is covered under the EEO laws, and occurs where harassment is \u201cbased on the perception that an individual has a particular protected characteristic\u2014for example, the belief that a person has a particular national origin, religion, or sexual orientation,\u201d regardless of whether \u201cthe perception is incorrect.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Associational Discrimination is covered<b> <\/b>under the EEO laws, and<b> <\/b>takes place where \u201cthe complainant associates with someone in a different protected class or harassment because the complainant associates with someone in the same protected class.\u201d The Guidance notes that associational harassment \u201coften involves a close relationship, such as with a close relative or friend,\u201d but the \u201cdegree of closeness is irrelevant to whether the association is covered.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Intraclass Harassment is covered<b> <\/b>under the EEO laws, and occurs where harassment is \u201cbased on the complainant\u2019s protected characteristic\u201d and \u201cthe harasser is a member of the same protected class.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Intersectional Harassment is covered under the EEO laws, and occurs where harassment is \u201cbased on more than one protected characteristic of an employee, either under a single EEO statute, such as Title VII, or under multiple EEO statutes, such as Title VII and the ADEA.\u201d The Guidance provides the example of \u201ca Black woman [being] harassed both because she is Black and because she is a woman, or alternatively, because she is a Black woman.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Covered Harassment, Including Virtual. The Guidance then addresses the requirement that unlawful harassment affect a \u201cterm, condition, or privilege\u201d of employment, and identifies workplace conduct that the Commission believes satisfies this standard. At the outset of this analysis, the Commission states that unlawful harassment covers not only an \u201cexplicit change to the terms or conditions of employment\u201d but also the \u201ccreation of a hostile work environment,\u201d where the conduct is \u201cboth subjectively hostile and objectively hostile.\u201d In addressing this standard, the Commission specifically notes that the federal anti-harassment statutes do not cover conduct that is \u201cmerely offensive\u201d and \u201cdo not impose a general civility code that covers run-of-the-mill boorish, juvenile, or annoying behavior.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The Guidance states that harassment can occur in a \u201cvirtual work environment\u201d and provides the following examples of \u201cvirtual\u201d harassment:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201c[S]exist comments made during a video meeting, ageist or ableist comments typed in a group chat, racist imagery that is visible in an employee\u2019s 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.\u201d The Guidance specifically notes that \u201cpostings on a social media account generally will not, standing alone, contribute to a hostile work environment if they do not target the employer or its employees.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>The Guidance notes that \u201cit is increasingly likely that the non-consensual distribution of real or computer-generated intimate images\u201d can contribute to a hostile work environment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Further, the Guidance highlights that \u201charassment by a supervisor that occurs outside the workplace is more likely to contribute to a hostile work environment than similar conduct by coworkers.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Balancing of Religion-Based Rights. The Guidance acknowledges that the application of the EEO laws may in some cases implicate other statutory and Constitutional rights, including an employer\u2019s duty to provide a religious accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs, and noted that many comments that the Commission received with respect to religious expression were with regard to the use of pronouns. The Commission stated that the interplay of these laws and rights \u201ccan be highly fact-specific,\u201d and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In the Guidance, the Commission did not cite the Seventh Circuit decision in <i>Kluge <\/i>v. <i>Brownsburg<\/i>, a case involving a \u201cTitle VII religious accommodation claim related to pronoun and first-name use,\u201d as the decision was recently vacated and remanded following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in <i>Groff<\/i> v. <i>DeJoy<\/i> wherein the Supreme Court found that religious accommodations must impose \u201csubstantial increased costs\u201d to constitute an undue hardship for an employer under Title VII. The Commission stated \u201c[o]nce the courts have completed adjudication\u201d of <i>Kluge<\/i>, the Commission \u201cwill give the final decision appropriate consideration.\u201d In the interim, the Commission is enhancing its administrative procedures and webpages to identify how employers can raise defenses, including religious defenses, in response to a charge. The EEOC also stated that employers are not obligated to accommodate religious expression to the extent it creates a hostile work environment and should take corrective action when necessary.<\/p>\n<p><i>State of Tennessee et al. <\/i>v. <i>Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al<\/i>.\u00a0 On May 13, 2024, a group of state attorneys general filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Tennessee against the EEOC challenging the Guidance and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.\u00a0 The complaint alleges that the Guidance seeks to \u201cextend Title VII\u2019s protections against sex-based discrimination to new contexts related to \u2018gender identity,\u2019\u201d and is an \u201cexemplar of recent federal agency efforts to enshrine sweeping gender-identity mandates without congressional consent.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Takeaways.\u00a0 Notwithstanding the challenge brought by the state attorneys general, employers should be mindful that the Guidance still represents the EEOC\u2019s views on actionable instances of harassment, and will inform EEOC actions, including with respect to investigative and enforcement decision-making.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (\u201cEEOC\u201d) published its long-awaited Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the \u201cGuidance\u201d). The Guidance\u2014the first issued by [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9883,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[1118,1385,3798,1532,2684,3731],"class_list":["post-9882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-eeoc","tag-enforcement","tag-guidance","tag-harassment","tag-issues","tag-workplace"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9882"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9882\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9883"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}