Earlier this month, a coalition of 70 U.S. House Democrats led by Reps. Mark Takano, Bobby Scott, and Suzanne Bonamici accused Andrea Lucas—the current Acting Chair of the EEOC—of downgrading and dismissing discrimination claims based on gender identity. They allege she “reclassified such cases as meritless,” halted ongoing lawsuits, removed gender‑neutral “X” markers from forms, and leaned on a Trump-era executive order that narrowly defines sex as binary.

This push by Congress clashes head-on with the landmark 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, in which the Supreme Court affirmed that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Why It Matters for Employers

• If the EEOC deprioritizes gender identity claims, fewer investigations may move forward, which will undermine the agency’s role as a protector of LGBTQ+ rights in the workplace.
• Employers already face a patchwork environment: federally, courts recognize gender identity protections, but agency enforcement may wane. This fact adds complexity to internal DEI policies and compliance mechanics.
• Workers denied EEOC support may bring more private lawsuits. Employers should reassess risk management, including updating policies, increasing training, and tracking internal complaints.
• This controversy highlights how shifts in presidential administrations and executive orders reshape workplace discrimination enforcement. Employers should monitor policy changes to stay proactive.

Action Plan for Employers

• Verify that your complaint procedures allow gender identity issues to be escalated, regardless of EEOC involvement.
• Provide enhanced training for HR, DEI, and legal personnel to ensure understanding of evolving Title VII interpretations and California’s protections under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
• Check for inclusive language in your policies and procedures and ensure they consistently reflect non-binary options.
• Consider contacting your legal counsel if you have questions or concerns.

Although Bostock remains good law, agency enforcement inconsistency may widen the gap between legal theory and workplace reality.