Posts

Showing posts with the label religious beliefs

An employer's harassment to-do list for our times

Image
Easiest to-do list ever! As I reported recently , the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has rescinded a detailed harassment guidance document issued during the Biden Administration. As a result, many employers are probably wondering what exactly they can and cannot do, as well as what they should and shouldn’t do. I  speculated  about this in early January. Now that the rescission is official, here is my 2026 harassment to-do list for employers. I hope it helps. No. 1: If you have a good harassment policy, don’t change a thing.  Well, maybe one or two things, discussed below. But don't believe the hype. The EEOC's action does not mean that we're in a harassment free-for-all. Don't delete the parts of your policy that prohibit discrimination or harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. You should keep those. The U.S. Supreme Court  ruled in 2020  that discrimination (and, presumably, harassment) based on sexual orientation or gender i...

Court scraps EEOC guidance on pronouns, restrooms, and dress

Image
Don't expect the EEOC to appeal. (NOT OUR ACTUAL JUDGE.) In April 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued  Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace . The Enforcement Guidance addressed, among other things, harassment and discrimination based on gender identity. Current Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, who was a Commissioner at the time, dissented from the gender identity portions of the Enforcement Guidance, saying that “[w]omen’s sex-based rights in the workplace are under attack.” The State of Texas and the Heritage Foundation then sued the EEOC, seeking to block the gender identity portions of the Enforcement Guidance from taking effect.  Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the Enforcement Guidance went way beyond the scope of the 2020 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in  Bostock v. Clayton County , in which the Court ruled that terminating an employee based on sexual orientation or g...