Diversity & Inclusion, HR Management & Compliance

Proposed Harassment Guidance Broadens Employers’ Obligations Under EEO Law

On October 2, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published in the Federal Register its notice of proposed guidance on “Enforcement Guidance of Harassment in the Workplace.”

workplace harassment EEOC

The guidance incorporates updates reflecting current case law governing workplace harassment and addresses the proliferation of digital technology and how social media postings and other off-work conduct could contribute to a hostile work environment. It further illustrates a wide range of scenarios showcasing actionable harassment.

Covered Basis

The guidance makes clear that federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) statutes only protect against harassment if it’s based on an employee’s legally protected characteristics, such as race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, physical and mental disability, and genetic information.

Building in part on case law over the past 25 years and in part on positions taken by the commission, it goes on to provide that “sex-based” discrimination includes harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, and other related medical conditions such as a worker’s “reproductive decisions” including “contraception or abortion” and that “sex-based” discrimination incorporates protections for LGBTQ+ workers against harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

It also provides protections for “sex-based” stereotyping.

Notably, under the proposed guidance, the EEOC would recognize claims for perceptional-based harassment where harassment is based on the perception that an individual has a particular protected characteristic, even if that perception turns out to be incorrect.

Moreover, the EEOC would recognize claims under federal EEO law for “association harassment,” where a complainant associates with someone in a different protected class or suffers harassment because they associate with someone in the same protected class.


The guidance reaffirms that a causation determination of whether hostile workplace harassment is based on a protected characteristic will depend on the totality of the circumstances. It provides numerous examples that reflect a wide range of scenarios wherein causation may or may not be established.

The scenarios reflect findings where the conduct involved alleges facially discriminatory conduct, stereotyping, situational context evaluations, close timing, and comparator evidence.

Narrowing the Objective Standard

To establish a hostile work environment, an employee must show there’s conduct that is both subjectively and objectively hostile. Notably, the guidance states that whether conduct is objectively hostile “should be made from the perspective of a reasonable person of the complainant’s protected class.”

The traditional “reasonable person” standard wasn’t so limited. In the EEOC’s view, “personal or situational characteristics,” such as age differential or undocumented worker status, also affect both the objective and subjective reasonableness assessment—a position not shared by all the courts.

Conduct Not Directed at the Employee

The guidance provides that an individual who hasn’t personally been subjected to unlawful harassment based on their protected status may be able to file an EEOC charge and a lawsuit alleging they have been harmed by unlawful harassment of a third party.

For example, an employee who is forced to engage in unlawful harassment of another employee may have their own claim under the law, even though they weren’t personally subjected to unlawful harassment.

Conduct Outside the Workplace

The guidance broadly considers conduct occurring in a non-work-related context as part of a hostile work environment. The EEOC provides several examples where an employer may have an obligation to take action against conduct that occurs in a non-work-related context.

In the commission’s view, an employer may be liable for harassment if the conduct simply “impacts the workplace.” Here are two examples that illustrate this:

  • If “a Black employee is subjected to racist slurs and physically assaulted by white coworkers who encounter him on a city street, the presence of those same coworkers in the Black employee’s workplace can result in a hostile work environment.”
  • If “an Arab-American employee is the subject of ethnic epithets that a coworker posts on a personal social media page, and either the employee learns about the post directly, or other coworkers see the comment and discuss it at work, then the social media posting can contribute to a racially hostile work environment.”

The guidance significantly stretches current case law, which typically only considers outside-of-work conduct when it’s carried out by an employee with direct supervisory authority, occurs at a work-related event, or occurs between coworkers who constantly work with and see each other inside the workplace.

The guidance notes that the EEOC’s broadened stance is in light of the proliferation of digital technology, such as electronic communications using private phones, computers, or social media accounts, that often bleeds into the workplace.

Framework of Liability

Consistent with governing case law, the guidance sets forth several frameworks under which harassment claims will be analyzed. Which framework is applicable depends on the relationship of the harasser to the employer and the nature of the hostile work environment.

Once the status of the harasser is determined, the appropriate standard will be applied to assess employer liability for a hostile work environment.

Automatic Liability
An employer is always liable if a supervisor’s harassment creates a hostile work environment that includes a tangible employment action.

Vicarious Liability
If harassment by a supervisor creates a hostile work environment that doesn’t include a tangible employment action, the employer can raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages.

If harassment comes from a nonsupervisory employee or nonemployee, the negligence standard is principally applied.

Expansion of Liability Standards That Apply in Harassment Cases

The guidance also expands on the circumstances in which an employer may be subject to automatic liability. Since the Supreme Court’s Faragher/Ellerth rulings, the “supervisor” designation often becomes a key issue in determining an employer’s liability.

In the EEOC’s view, a coworker is a supervisor if the complainant reasonably believed the coworker had the power to recommend or influence tangible employment actions (e.g., hiring, firing, and demotions) against them. This “reasonable belief” approach would allow a coworker to be considered a supervisor even if the coworker had no power to take or influence tangible employment actions against a complainant.

This guidance appears to contradict the Supreme Court’s instruction to limit the supervisor’s inquiry into whether the harasser actually was empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the complainant.

Employer’s Reporting Mechanism Not Required

An employer has an affirmative defense to hostile work environment harassment when it can show both that it took reasonable steps to prevent and correct harassment and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of those opportunities or take other steps to avoid the harassment.

The guidance provides that, even if the employee didn’t use the employer’s reporting mechanism to complain of harassment, other actions—such as filing a grievance with a union—may mean the employer has been notified of the concern, and the affirmative defense cannot be used.

Bottom Line

The public is invited to submit comments and view the document via the federal e-regulation website until November 1.

Notably, EEOC guidance doesn’t have the force of law, but it provides insight into how the EEOC will interpret and seek to enforce the federal EEO laws.

Regardless of changes, management and HR executives will need to continue antiharassment efforts that have been put into place over the last 25 years. Maintain clear and robust antiharassment policies, provide training, thoroughly investigate complaints of harassment, and take appropriate corrective action when an investigation indicates inappropriate conduct.

Allison Hawkins and Amy Wilkes are attorneys with Burr & Forman LLP in Birmingham, Alabama, and can be reached at ahawkins@burr.com and awilkes@burr.com.