A federal court scrapped a hearing planned for 27 January 2025 but will allow the parties to refile preliminary injunction briefs in response to an executive order calling for rescission of the US EEOC’s gender identity guidance.
Shutterstock.com/Mehaniq
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee approved the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) motion to vacate oral arguments in an order dated 23 January 2025. The court denied without prejudice Tennessee’s motion for a preliminary injunction, leaving 21 days to refile.
Tennessee and 17 other states filed a complaint regarding the EEOC’s interpretation of gender identity protections, laid out in the agency’s Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, on 13 May 2024. The guidance cites the US Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v Clayton in recognising harassment based on gender identity as discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964. Oral arguments to address the plaintiffs’ complaint were scheduled to take place on 27 January 2025.
The EEOC moved to vacate oral arguments on 22 January 2025 in light of US President Donald Trump’s executive order, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, issued two days prior. The order declares that Trump’s administration will only recognise biological sex and moves to rescind any guidance inconsistent with this agenda, including the enforcement guidance. In its motion, the EEOC cited the executive order, as well as Trump’s designation of acting agency chair Andrea R. Lucas, as grounds to vacate the hearing.
The plaintiffs didn’t oppose the EEOC’s motion to vacate the hearing, but requested the court issue a paper decision on preliminary relief. The states argued that, until the EEOC complies with the executive order and rescinds its guidance, they remain subject to the guidance and in need of preliminary relief.
The court’s order acknowledged both parties’ concerns. US District Judge Charles Atchley agreed with the EEOC’s position that the executive order renders oral arguments unnecessary, granting the agency’s motion to vacate next week’s hearing. Atchley also reasoned that, because the executive order specifically calls for a rescission of the enforcement guidance, there may no longer be a need for the court to rule on the case. He questioned whether the motion for preliminary relief remains live and invited the parties to refile briefs that “account for the changed legal landscape” attributable to the executive order.