Mailbag: Should we follow EEOC’s lead on gender identity policy?

Summary

The article reports on a question posed to HR Dive’s Mailbag about whether employers should remove references to gender identity from anti-harassment policies after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signalled it may rescind guidance addressing gender-identity harassment. University of Colorado law professor Scott Moss advised against deleting protections for sexual orientation and gender identity, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, which the professor and many attorneys interpret as making discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation unlawful under Title VII. The piece notes a judge vacated parts of the EEOC harassment guidance earlier in the year, but legal commentators still urge employers to keep such protections in place unless Bostock is overturned.

Key Points

Scott Moss of University of Colorado Law School says removing gender identity and sexual orientation from policies would be a “significant risk.”
The Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision is widely read as prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII.
The EEOC previously included gender identity in harassment guidance, but parts of that guidance were vacated by a judge and the EEOC may rescind the document.
Legal experts advise employers to retain protections and continue treating misgendering and related conduct as potential harassment.
State and local laws may also protect transgender and nonbinary employees, so removing language could increase legal exposure and harm employees.

Author’s take

Punchy: This isn’t a nitpick — it’s a compliance and reputational issue. The legal landscape changed with Bostock and, despite regulatory moves, the safest and most employee-centred approach for employers is to keep explicit protections and enforcement mechanisms in place.

Why should I read this?

Short version: If you look after people or policies, this saves you head-scratching later. It explains why ditching gender-identity language now is risky and points to the court precedent that still protects employees — worth knowing before you touch your handbook.

Source

Source: https://www.hrdive.com/news/gender-identity-harassment/805934/