Federal Court Vacates EEOC Guidance on Workplace Protections for Transgender Employees

June 5, 2025

On May 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its authority by issuing guidance expanding workplace protections to transgender employees. More specifically, the Texas federal court held that former President Biden’s EEOC expansion of the definition of the word “sex” was contrary to law. Biden’s EEOC guidance that the Texas court takes issue with was updated in April 2024, and specified that actions like using incorrect pronouns, denying access to bathrooms associated with gender identity, and enforcing dress codes inconsistent with gender identity could constitute unlawful harassment under Title VII.


Court's Decision:

  • The Court sided with the State of Texas, determining that the EEOC exceeded its statutory authority by expanding the scope of "sex" under Title VII beyond the biological binary.
  • The guidance was found to contradict Title VII by stating that failure to accommodate transgender employees' preferences would constitute sex harassment.


Employer Takeaways:

  • The ruling vacated key parts of the EEOC's 2024 guidance, but its nationwide impact remains unclear.
  • EEOC Guidance does not supersede state or local laws providing workplace protections to transgender individuals.
  • Employers should continue to maintain policies that prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including those related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.


While it is still unclear how this ruling will impact employers nationwide, it is still important to continue to stay up to date on ever-changing legislation.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

December 5, 2025
Our attorneys successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of the Defendant from the Massachusetts Appeals Court in a Wage Act and contract dispute. The Complainant alleged entitlement to a substantial variable compensation award following resignation. We demonstrated that the compensation plan made such awards discretionary and contingent on continued employment at the time of payout. The Appeals Court agreed, finding that the award did not constitute wages under the Wage Act and that the Defendant acted lawfully in denying payment. All claims were dismissed in their entirety.
By The Royal Law Firm November 5, 2025
Attorney Amy Royal has once again been selected as a Super Lawyer ! As published by Super Lawyers Amy B. Royal is a top-rated attorney, with her firm headquartered in Springfield, Massachusetts. Providing legal representation in the New England states and New York, for a variety of different issues, Amy Royal was selected to Super Lawyers for 2014 - 2016, 2019 - 2025. Attorneys like Amy B. Royal are recognized by their peers for their outstanding work and commitment to the spirit of the legal profession. Their knowledge of the law, professional work ethic, and advocacy on behalf of their clients allow them to stand out among other attorneys in the field.