Personnel

Judge gavel on a wooden desk, law books background

Understanding how courts interpret school policies is essential for today’s educational leaders, especially as issues involving gender identity continue to evolve.

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, offers important guidance for school districts navigating the balance between protecting students and respecting the personal beliefs of staff. This blog post breaks down what the Polk decision means for your district and offers practical steps to help ensure your policies remain both legally sound and supportive of all students.

Door with knob opening to a classroom

On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) voted 2-1 to rescind its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” which had been approved in 2024. In a statement, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas contended that the 2024 Guidance overstepped the agency’s authority by imposing new obligations on employers rather than simply interpreting existing law. Lucas emphasized, however, that “rescinding this guidance does not give employers license to engage in unlawful harassment,” and that the EEOC “will continue to be dedicated to preventing and remedying unlawful workplace harassment.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has ceased investigating claims based solely on alleged disparate impact discrimination. Traditionally, disparate impact discrimination claims could be proven when a seemingly neutral employment policy or practice disproportionately affected members of a protected class—such as race, gender, or age—even if there was no evidence of an intent to discriminate.

On December 1, 2016, millions of American workers were expecting to become eligible for overtime pursuant to the new Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) overtime regulations enacted by the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”). Employers had prepared to put the new rules in place and some had even preemptively adjusted employee policies and salaries in anticipation of the new rules taking effect. However, on November 22, 2016, in a surprising ruling, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant in Texas blocked the new rules from taking effect by granting a nationwide preliminary injunction which was sought by 21 states and a number of business groups.