If the Commission votes "yes," it will be a terrible result for employers — not because the Guidance was perfect, but because clarity beats chaos every time.
Harassment law hasn't suddenly changed. Title VII is still Title VII. Employees will still complain, charges will still get filed, and lawsuits will still follow. The only difference is whether employers have a modern roadmap for compliance, or whether we're left piecing together best practices from decades of cases, inconsistent agency positions, and after-the-fact enforcement.
Here's what the 2024 Guidance actually provided. It consolidated the EEOC's harassment positions into one place and updated them for the way people work today. It explained the legal standards (hostile work environment, quid pro quo, employer liability). It addressed harassment by supervisors, co-workers, and third parties. It covered remote work and digital communications. And, most importantly, it included 77 real-world examples showing what harassment looks like in practice, what crosses the line, and what doesn't.
That matters because employers don't benefit from ambiguity. Plaintiffs and their lawyers do.
Rescinding the Guidance won't make harassment claims disappear. It will make them messier. It will invite inconsistent enforcement. And it will increase the odds that two employers doing the same thing get two different outcomes depending on the investigator, the regional office, or the Commission's current political whims.
If you're thinking, "Employers will just rely on their policies," good luck. Policies only work when managers follow them, HR documents them, and leadership supports them. The Guidance helped employers pressure-test all of that.
Employers should want clear rules, not uncertainty. A vote to rescind would replace practical direction with confusion — and every business will pay the price in higher risk, higher costs, and more litigation.
I sincerely hope the EEOC does the right thing here. But I think we all know this iteration of the agency won't.
Harassment law hasn't suddenly changed. Title VII is still Title VII. Employees will still complain, charges will still get filed, and lawsuits will still follow. The only difference is whether employers have a modern roadmap for compliance, or whether we're left piecing together best practices from decades of cases, inconsistent agency positions, and after-the-fact enforcement.
Here's what the 2024 Guidance actually provided. It consolidated the EEOC's harassment positions into one place and updated them for the way people work today. It explained the legal standards (hostile work environment, quid pro quo, employer liability). It addressed harassment by supervisors, co-workers, and third parties. It covered remote work and digital communications. And, most importantly, it included 77 real-world examples showing what harassment looks like in practice, what crosses the line, and what doesn't.
That matters because employers don't benefit from ambiguity. Plaintiffs and their lawyers do.
Rescinding the Guidance won't make harassment claims disappear. It will make them messier. It will invite inconsistent enforcement. And it will increase the odds that two employers doing the same thing get two different outcomes depending on the investigator, the regional office, or the Commission's current political whims.
If you're thinking, "Employers will just rely on their policies," good luck. Policies only work when managers follow them, HR documents them, and leadership supports them. The Guidance helped employers pressure-test all of that.
Employers should want clear rules, not uncertainty. A vote to rescind would replace practical direction with confusion — and every business will pay the price in higher risk, higher costs, and more litigation.
I sincerely hope the EEOC does the right thing here. But I think we all know this iteration of the agency won't.