19 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP 9. EEOC Stepping Down from Several Lawsuits An Executive Order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” published on January 20, 2025, stated that sex is a binary concept limited to “biologically male” and “biologically female.”38 On January 29, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directed all federal employees to take prompt actions to end all agency programs that use taxpayer money to “promote or reflect gender ideology” as defined in the Executive Order. In response, the EEOC withdrew seven lawsuits it had initiated accusing businesses of discriminating against transgender or nonbinary employees. In EEOC v. Sis-Bro Inc., a transgender employee alleged that a coworker exposed his genitals to her and touched her breasts, addressed her by her birth-name, and repeatedly criticized her for receiving gender affirming care. After the EEOC withdrew its representation, the employee was represented by Justicia Laboral LLC. This case was later settled in September 2025.39 In EEOC v. Harmony Hospitality LLC, a gay nonbinary male employee alleged that Harmony Hospitality LLC discriminated against him by firing him hours after co-owners learned of his gender identity. After the EEOC withdrew its representation, the employee was represented by private counsel. The case was dismissed in July 2025 after a stipulation of dismissal was filed by the parties.40 In EEOC v. Reggio’s Pizza Inc., a transgender employee alleged that she was “outed” by her manager, called a homophobic slur by coworkers, and fired when she complained. After the EEOC withdrew its representation, the former employee filed a sealed motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym. The case is currently ongoing.41 In EEOC v. Boxwood Hotels LLC et al., a transgender housekeeper alleged that they were fired after complaining that a supervisor repeatedly misgendered the employee and made anti-transgender statements, referring to the housekeeper as a “transformer” and “it.” After the EEOC withdrew its representation, the employee has been represented by Gender Equality Law Center. The case is currently ongoing.42 In EEOC v. Lush Handmade Cosmetics LLC et al., three transgender employees alleged that a manager sexually harassed them with offensive physical and verbal sexual conduct. After the EEOC withdrew its representation, the employees retained private counsel. This case was referred to mediation and is currently ongoing.43 In EEOC v. Starboard Group Inc. et al., three transgender plaintiffs alleged that they were subject to pervasive sexual harassment, including that one supervisor demanded to know if one employee had a penis. After the EEOC withdrew its representation, the employees have been represented by private counsel. The case is currently ongoing.44 In Lucas v. Brik Enterprises Inc. et al., the employer allegedly fired one transgender male employee—who claimed to have been repeatedly misgendered and harassed—and three co-workers who reported the alleged harassment and urged corrective action. The EEOC initially represented all four former employees, while the transgender employee also intervened in the litigation with private counsel. After the EEOC 38 Exec. Order No. 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, 90 FR 8615 (2025). 39 EEOC v. Sis-Bro Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00968 (S.D. Ill.). 40 EEOC v. Harmony Hospitality LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00357 (M.D. Ala.). 41 EEOC v. Reggio’s Pizza Inc., No. 1:24-cv-08910 (N.D. Ill.). 42 EEOC v. Boxwood Hotels LLC et al., No. 1:24-cv-00902 (W.D.N.Y). 43 EEOC v. Lush Handmade Cosmetics LLC et al., No. 5:24-cv-06859 (N.D. Cal.). 44 EEOC v. Starboard Group Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-02260 (S.D. Ill.).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4