EEOC Harassment Guidance for Oklahoma Employers

For the first time in over 25 years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has updated its guidance on workplace harassment. The new guidance, finalized in 2024, reflects decades of legal developments and addresses modern workplace realities that the previous guidance — written before smartphones, social media, and remote work existed — never contemplated. For Oklahoma employers and employees alike, understanding these changes is essential.

The guidance doesn't create new law. It's the EEOC's official interpretation of how existing federal anti-discrimination statutes — primarily 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) — apply to contemporary harassment scenarios. Courts aren't required to follow EEOC guidance, but they frequently find it persuasive, and the guidance directly shapes how the agency evaluates charges and pursues enforcement actions. Employers who ignore it do so at significant risk, because the guidance signals exactly what the EEOC considers unlawful and how it will prioritize its enforcement resources.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

The most significant doctrinal update follows the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The new guidance applies this holding directly to harassment, confirming that harassment targeting employees because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression constitutes sex-based harassment under Title VII.

In practical terms, this means that intentional and repeated misuse of an employee's pronouns or chosen name, harassment related to gender transition, and sex-stereotyping — targeting employees who don't conform to traditional gender expectations — are all potentially actionable under the same framework that governs any other form of sex-based harassment. Employers who haven't updated their anti-harassment policies to explicitly cover these categories are operating with an obvious gap that the EEOC will not overlook.

This extends to hostile work environment claims as well. A workplace where employees regularly make derogatory comments about a coworker's gender identity or sexual orientation, and where management does nothing to intervene, creates the same kind of hostile work environment liability that applies to any other form of harassment.

Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Reproductive Decisions

The guidance addresses harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions — including lactation, breastfeeding, and abortion. This has become an increasingly sensitive area following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which has generated heightened workplace tension around reproductive issues in many states.

The practical implications are significant. Supervisors who make comments about an employee's pregnancy decisions, question whether a pregnant employee can "really handle" her workload, or create a hostile environment around lactation or breastfeeding accommodations expose the employer to harassment liability. Employers should train managers specifically to avoid commentary on employees' reproductive choices and ensure that pregnancy-related harassment is treated with the same seriousness as any other form of sex discrimination.

Remote and Hybrid Work Environments

For the first time, EEOC guidance explicitly addresses harassment in virtual workplaces. This reflects a reality that millions of American workers have experienced since 2020: harassment didn't disappear when work moved to Zoom — it just moved with it. The guidance confirms that harassment via video calls, emails, instant messaging, collaboration tools like Slack and Teams, and inappropriate conduct during virtual meetings is covered by the same legal framework that applies to in-person harassment.

The principle is straightforward: if the conduct would constitute harassment in the office, it constitutes harassment on a video call. This includes inappropriate backgrounds, comments, or conduct during virtual meetings, as well as harassing messages sent through workplace communication tools outside of regular work hours. Employers need investigation procedures that are equipped to preserve digital evidence — messages, emails, screenshots, recordings — and that address cross-platform harassment across the various tools their employees use.

Social Media and Third-Party Conduct

The guidance recognizes that online conduct outside of work hours can create a hostile work environment when it targets a coworker based on protected characteristics, becomes known in the workplace, and affects the working environment. An employee who posts derogatory comments about a colleague's race or religion on social media, and those posts are shared among coworkers, may be creating a hostile environment even though the posts were made on personal time using personal devices.

The guidance also reaffirms that employers may be liable for harassment by non-employees — customers, vendors, contractors, and clients — when the employer knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to take appropriate corrective action. This is particularly relevant for customer-facing roles in retail, healthcare, hospitality, and food service, where employees may endure persistent harassment from customers that their employers tolerate because they don't want to lose business. The EEOC's position is clear: revenue doesn't justify allowing employees to be harassed.

What This Means for Oklahoma Employers

The updated guidance demands action in several areas. Anti-harassment policies should be reviewed and updated to explicitly cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy-related conditions, address remote and hybrid work environments and virtual communication platforms, include examples of unacceptable online conduct, and clarify procedures for reporting harassment by third parties including customers and clients.

Training programs should be modernized to cover the expanded categories in the guidance, include scenarios involving virtual workplaces and social media, address bystander intervention strategies, and be conducted regularly — not as a one-time checkbox. The EEOC has been increasingly skeptical of perfunctory training that amounts to reading a policy aloud once a year and collecting signatures.

Manager accountability is a particular focus. The guidance emphasizes that supervisors who ignore or mishandle harassment complaints expose the employer to direct liability. Managers should receive specific training on recognizing harassment, responding appropriately to complaints, escalating to HR or legal counsel, and understanding that their personal failure to act creates organizational liability.

The Affirmative Defense: Faragher/Ellerth

Employers can avoid vicarious liability for supervisor harassment through the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense, which requires showing that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to use available complaint procedures. This defense requires proactive prevention — not just reactive response after a complaint. Updated policies, effective training, accessible and well-publicized reporting mechanisms, and prompt, thorough investigations are all essential components.

The new guidance makes clear that outdated or incomplete prevention efforts will be scrutinized. An employer whose anti-harassment policy hasn't been updated since 2015, whose training consists of a 30-minute video shown once during onboarding, and whose complaint procedures are buried in a 200-page employee handbook will have difficulty establishing the affirmative defense. The EEOC expects proactive, ongoing, and evolving prevention efforts that reflect current legal standards.

If you believe you've been subjected to workplace harassment — or if you're an employer who needs to update policies and training to meet current standards — we can help. At Addison Law, we advise both employees facing harassment and employers navigating compliance. Contact us for a consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this guidance apply to small employers?

Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees. The guidance interprets Title VII, so it applies to all covered employers regardless of size above that threshold. Smaller employers should still follow best practices to avoid liability under Oklahoma's anti-discrimination statute, which parallels federal protections.

Do we need new anti-harassment training?

If your training doesn't address LGBTQ+ harassment, virtual workplace issues, and current legal standards, yes. Outdated training provides weak evidence of prevention efforts and undermines the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.

What if an employee is harassed on their personal social media?

If the conduct targets a coworker based on protected characteristics and becomes known in the workplace — affecting the work environment — it may create employer liability. Context matters, including how widely the posts were shared, whether management knew, and whether the employer took corrective action.

Are we liable for customer harassment of our employees?

Potentially, if you knew or should have known and failed to act. The EEOC expects employers to protect employees from abusive customers and to train managers on when to intervene, even at the cost of losing a customer's business.

How does this interact with Oklahoma law?

Oklahoma's Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA) parallels Title VII in many respects. Federal guidance often influences state enforcement as well. Following EEOC guidance generally positions you well under both federal and state law.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.