On January 22, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted to rescind its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.” While this move has generated attention, it does not significantly change most employers’ legal obligations, including Michigan employers, whose compliance responsibilities remain governed largely by existing federal and state law.
What the EEOC Harassment Guidance Addressed
The rescinded guidance issued on April 29, 2024, was not a binding law. Rather, it outlined how the EEOC interpreted federal anti-harassment law under certain statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Although the guidance addressed a broad range of protected characteristics, such as race, sex, religion, age, and disability, public attention largely centered on provisions related to gender identity, sexual orientation, and reproductive-rights-related issues. Those sections relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County and included examples of harassment, such as repeated misuse of an employee’s name or pronouns, or denial of access to restrooms and locker rooms consistent with an employee’s gender identity.
Why the EEOC Rescinded the Harassment Guidance
The basis for the EEOC’s action appears to address provisions interpreting the scope of legal prohibitions related to gender-identity. Those provisions were enacted by a 2-1 vote, over the dissent of the current EEOC Chairperson, and later vacated by a federal district court.
The EEOC has now rescinded the guidance in its entirety, rather than revising or withdrawing only the provisions related to sexual orientation and gender identity. That approach is notable as the agency could have narrowed its action to specific sections. In the EEOC’s announcement of the rescission, it did not address the rationale for this chosen approach. The announcement noted that federal laws clearly prohibit workplace harassment based on protected class, and affirmed the agency’s continued dedication to preventing and remedying unlawful workplace harassment.
Impact of the EEOC Decision on Employers
From a practical standpoint, the rescission does not significantly change the law. The guidance did not create any new legal obligations, but it did provide insight into how the EEOC evaluated harassment claims and approached its enforcement. Its withdrawal introduces uncertainty regarding future enforcement priorities and whether revised guidance will be issued.
Title VII and State Anti-Discrimination Laws Still Apply
Employers should not view this development as a rollback of substantive obligations. Bostock v. Clayton County remains binding precedent, and Title VII continues to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, even though the extent of those protections is still being developed.
In addition, many states, including Michigan, maintain separate laws that expressly prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Those laws remain fully in effect.
Varnum’s Labor and Employment Practice Team will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as the enforcement landscape evolves.
