Tennessee, along with 17 other states, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over its new harassment guidance. The states claim that this guidance unlawfully expands Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They argue that the EEOC’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision is misplaced, stating that the decision’s “narrow holding” cannot be broadly applied to all transgender-related employment issues, such as pronoun use and bathroom access. According to the plaintiffs, the EEOC is essentially trying to amend Title VII to include accommodations for gender identity, which Bostock did not explicitly cover.
The states joining Tennessee in this lawsuit include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. They are seeking to halt the EEOC’s harassment guidance, claiming it misinterprets the law as provided by the Bostock decision.
Tennessee’s lawsuit references a similar EEOC document from June 2021, which was vacated and also addressed protections against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. That guidance covered topics like dress codes, pronouns, and sex-segregated spaces, aiming to clarify Bostock’s implications for employers. Tennessee and several other states had previously sought an injunction against that document, arguing it misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s decision. A judge granted a preliminary injunction in July 2022, and a district court vacated the document in October in a separate case initiated by Texas.
The current lawsuit claims that the new harassment guidance mirrors the interpretations found in the 2021 guidance, attempting to extend Bostock to areas like bathrooms and pronouns, which the Supreme Court had explicitly declined to address. The plaintiffs argue that the EEOC’s proposed enforcement would hold employers liable for the actions of customers or other third parties.
In addition to challenging the harassment guidance, Tennessee is leading another effort with many of the same states to stop an EEOC rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, specifically targeting its provisions on abortion accommodations. This legal action is part of a broader trend where states, industry groups, and employers are challenging new regulations from various federal agencies. These challenges aim to prevent the implementation of rules that might otherwise face dismissal under the Congressional Review Act in the next session of Congress.
In conclusion, Tennessee and its co-plaintiffs are actively opposing recent EEOC actions, claiming overreach in the interpretation and application of Title VII and other employment-related laws. This legal battle highlights ongoing tensions between state and federal interpretations of workplace protections and regulations.