Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to EEOC’s Shift Away from Investigating Gender Identity Bias Charges

On June 12, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a challenge to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) recent shift in enforcement priorities regarding gender identity discrimination claims. The decision in FreeState Justice v. EEOC is another example of a court’s dismissal of challenges to the EEOC’s enforcement priorities based on the agency’s discretion, even where the policy change is viewed as controversial.

Importantly, however, the court’s decision does not alter existing substantive law under Title VII or applicable state law. Claims based on gender identity and disparate impact remain viable, and private plaintiffs may continue to pursue them in court.

The Court’s Decision

FreeState Justice, a nonprofit LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, challenged the EEOC’s shift in priorities arguing that the EEOC was unlawfully abandoning its statutory duty to enforce Title VII. Specifically, FreeState Justice challenged the EEOC’s modified enforcement approach to certain Title VII claims in response to Executive Order 14168. According to the allegations in FreeState:

• The EEOC curtailed investigations into certain gender identity-based discrimination claims, particularly harassment and retaliation claims;
• The agency also stopped reimbursing state and local agencies for investigating gender identity-related charges; and
• While the EEOC resumed processing claims of gender-identity discrimination that occur during hiring, firing, promotion, it has not resumed processing claims alleging harassment or retaliation based on gender-identity.

The court dismissed the case for lack of standing, holding that it lacked authority to review the EEOC’s enforcement priorities. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent and similar district court decisions. The court emphasized in its decision that:

• Federal agencies have broad discretion to decide whether and how to investigate and bring enforcement actions;
• Courts are generally not permitted to order agencies to initiate or expand enforcement activities; and
• Challenges seeking to compel additional enforcement actions typically fail because they do not present a justiciable controversy.

Even while characterizing the EEOC’s policy shift as “deeply troubling,” the court concluded that it could not intervene.

Consistent Trend in Similar Cases

The Maryland court’s decision aligns with a growing body of case law rejecting efforts to force the EEOC to pursue specific theories of liability. For example, in Cross v. EEOC, No. 1:25-CV-3702, 2025 WL 3280764 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2025), a federal court dismissed a claim seeking to require the EEOC to investigate disparate impact claims, holding that the agency’s decision to refrain from pursuing such claims was a discretionary enforcement choice.

Together, these decisions reinforce a key principle that courts will not second guess or mandate agency enforcement priorities, even where those priorities may affect the scope of administrative remedies available to employees.

What This Means for Employers

The EEOC’s current enforcement position may result in fewer agency investigations involving gender identity or disparate impact claims, but it does not reduce employers’ underlying legal obligations.  

The substantive law has not changed. Gender identity discrimination claims and disparate impact theories remain viable under Title VII and applicable state law, and employees may continue to pursue them through private litigation regardless of the EEOC’s involvement. Employers therefore should continue to evaluate their policies and practices under existing law and not the EEOC’s current enforcement priorities.

Employers should maintain a proactive compliance approach, particularly with respect to policies affecting transgender employees and neutral practices that could create disparate impact exposure.

Key Takeaway

While courts have confirmed that they cannot compel the EEOC to pursue gender identity or disparate impact claims, private plaintiffs may still bring claims. Employer obligations under Title VII and state law remain the same, and Employers should continue to enforce their existing equal employment opportunity policies.  

For any questions, please contact your labor and employment counsel.