(Photo public domain)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agreed in August to a settlement with the Christian Employers Alliance that could limit the agency’s ability to pursue certain workplace discrimination claims involving gender identity. Now, Democratic lawmakers are questioning how far the agreement reaches — and whether it could constrain the commission’s enforcement decisions for years to come.
The Washington Blade obtained an early version of a letter from U.S. Reps. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), the ranking member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, and Mark Takano (D-Calif.), raising concerns about the settlement and its potential implications for workplace protections.
The agreement stems from a lawsuit the CEA filed challenging the Biden-Harris administration’s EEOC guidance on workplace harassment; including protections involving gender identity, pronouns, dress codes, and access to bathrooms and other facilities. The CEA argued that the guidance infringed on its members’ religious rights.
Under the settlement, the EEOC agreed not to pursue certain charges based on gender identity discrimination against the CEA and its member organizations. The agreement also covers future CEA members, provided the alleged conduct occurred while the employer was a member of the organization, raising questions about whether employers could receive protections from agency enforcement by joining the alliance.
Two Democratic congressional aides familiar with the EEOC’s work and workplace protections, who spoke to the Blade on the condition that they remain anonymous, said the agreement could restrict the commission’s ability to pursue discrimination complaints and potentially tie the hands of future administrations.
“They’re sort of swearing not to go after it and not exercising their own discretion, but they’re also purporting to bind future administrations with respect to exercising that discretion,” one aide said.
The aide said the agreement raises constitutional questions about whether the current administration can limit how future administrations exercise the EEOC’s enforcement authority.
In their letter to EEOC Chair Andrea R. Lucas, Scott and Takano question the legal authority for an agreement that they say would prevent future administrations from pursuing certain claims. They cite a 1986 Justice Department legal opinion concerning settlement agreements that constrain the discretion of future administrations and ask Lucas to explain the legal basis for the EEOC’s decision.
The lawmakers also ask whether the commission has entered into similar agreements, whether other federal agencies were consulted and whether the EEOC believes there are limits to its authority to make such commitments.
Scott also criticized the EEOC’s handling of workplace discrimination involving transgender and nonbinary people, arguing that the commission has failed to uphold its responsibilities under federal law.
“Discrimination against transgender and nonbinary people is a serious and ongoing issue. A recent survey found that despite the Bostock decision, 27 percent of transgender people experienced workplace discrimination in the past year. The EEOC was created under Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 and charged with addressing discrimination against workers. Yet, under Chair Lucas’s leadership, the EEOC has abdicated this responsibility under the law when it comes to transgender and nonbinary workers,” said Scott.
The commission’s fiscal year 2026 litigation filings also reflect a shift in its enforcement priorities. The agency’s lawsuits largely tracked its National Enforcement Plan, which emphasizes religious discrimination, alleged anti-American bias, protections for women and purportedly unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.
The EEOC filed 16 religion-based lawsuits, pursued several cases involving alleged discrimination against majority-group members and continued to bring pregnancy and sex discrimination claims. However, its filings included no lawsuits brought on behalf of LGBTQ employees, underscoring questions about how the commission is prioritizing workplace discrimination claims under Lucas’s leadership. The filings suggest the NEP has served as a roadmap for the agency’s litigation decisions, rather than merely a statement of policy priorities.
The letter raises a further concern: whether the agreement could allow employers to obtain protection from certain discrimination claims simply by joining the CEA.
The congressional aides questioned what safeguards would prevent employers from joining the alliance primarily to shield themselves from discrimination claims, rather than because of a genuine commitment to the organization’s stated religious principles.
“What kind of oversight is going to exist to even ensure that these future employers who join […] could just lie, right?” one aide said, questioning whether employers could claim to share the CEA’s beliefs while seeking liability protection.
The aides also raised concerns about the financial incentives the agreement could create for the organization as it recruits new members.
“It’s more than a little gross that this alliance is attracting other employers to join their alliance and making a buck off of workers’ discriminations, you know, complaints not being adjudicated by EEOC,” one aide said.
Scott and Takano are asking the EEOC to explain what requirements employers must meet to qualify for CEA membership and what safeguards will ensure they continue to meet those criteria. They also want to know how the agency will handle complaints involving multiple forms of alleged discrimination when only some fall within the settlement’s terms.
The agreement does not prevent workers from filing complaints with the EEOC, according to the congressional aides. Workers may also retain the ability to pursue private lawsuits. But the aides said employees could lose the commission’s support in cases the settlement prevents it from pursuing.
“They will still have the right to bring private lawsuits, they just won’t have the EEOC in their corner,” one aide said.
The lawmakers are seeking answers about what happens when an employee files a complaint against a CEA-member employer and the employer claims the case is covered by the settlement. They ask how quickly the EEOC would issue a right-to-sue notice in such circumstances and whether workers would be told that the settlement was the reason the agency did not pursue their cases.
The letter also asks whether the EEOC has developed — or plans to develop — notices explaining when an investigation is closed or partially closed because of the agreement.
The aides said the agreement’s precise scope remains unclear, including how it could affect complaints involving conduct beyond the specific issues challenged in the CEA’s lawsuit. They also questioned whether its implications could extend to other forms of sex-based discrimination, such as discrimination based on an employee’s appearance or failure to conform to gender stereotypes.
“The scope of this seems really big. Well, actually, it seems undefined, which is really the scary part,” one aide said.
The lawmakers are also seeking information about the role of EEOC Chief of Staff Shannon Royce, who, according to the letter, was CEA president when the organization filed its lawsuit. They ask whether Royce participated in the settlement process, whether she recused herself and whether the commission will provide records of relevant communications and meetings.
Scott and Takano are requesting quarterly reports on the number of investigations involving the CEA and its members that the EEOC closes because they fall within the settlement’s terms. The aides said the letter is intended to establish a record of the lawmakers’ concerns and signal that they intend to continue scrutinizing the agreement.
One aide warned that the settlement could contribute to a broader chilling effect on LGBTQ workers.
“I think this is one more move by this administration to shove people back in the closet,” the aide said.
The Blade contacted the EEOC on Friday seeking comment on the settlement’s implications for workplace protections and responses to the questions raised by Scott and Takano. The EEOC has yet to respond.
This story originally ran exclusively to the Washington Blade. The National LGBT Media Association represents 13 legacy publications in major markets across the country with a collective readership of more than 400K in print and more than 1 million + online. Learn more here: NationalLGBTMediaAssociation.com.
Sign up for the Watermark Out News eNewsletter and follow us for more:
BlueSky | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | TikTok | Threads | YouTube
