Former EEOC officials condemn agency’s move to drop anti-harassment guidance

Summary

A group called EEO Leaders — made up of former officials from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor — has publicly criticised the EEOC’s request to the White House to rescind the Biden-era anti-harassment guidance. The request, sent on 29 December, seeks approval to remove guidance that clarified harassment protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.

The former officials say the move is part of a broader effort by the current administration to roll back protections for LGBTQI+ people. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, who voted against the 2024 guidance and has pledged to “roll back the Biden administration’s gender identity agenda,” has framed rescission as necessary to protect sex-based privacy and safety for women.

EEO Leaders object to the agency treating the rescission as a “final rule” — which avoids a public notice-and-comment process — noting that the commission previously characterised the guidance as “significant” in court filings and that the original guidance was issued after extensive notice and comment.

Key Points

EEO Leaders, a group of former EEOC and DOL officials, released a letter condemning the EEOC’s request to rescind anti-harassment guidance.
The EEOC sent its rescission request to the White House on 29 December and framed it as a final rule, skipping a public notice-and-comment period.
Former officials say the rescission is part of a broader effort to weaken enforcement of anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas previously voted against the 2024 guidance and has publicly supported rolling back protections tied to gender identity.
Critics point out a legal inconsistency: the agency and DOJ have earlier described the guidance as “significant,” which would normally require notice and comment before rescission.

Author style

Punchy: This matters for anyone responsible for HR, compliance or workplace inclusion. The dispute goes beyond policy wording — it signals how aggressively the agency will interpret and enforce protections tied to sexual orientation and gender identity. If you manage people or set workplace rules, the practical consequences could be immediate.

Why should I read this?

Look — if you hire people, deal with complaints or write policies, this could change the rules of the game. It flags a potential pullback in guidance that employers used to interpret harassment protections for LGBTQI+ staff. Short version: read it so you’re not caught off guard.