Recent years have seen dramatic cultural shifts in many corners of our country, changes that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago. From legalized marijuana and the constitutional endorsement of gay marriage to the legislative battles being fought over bathroom access by transgender people, new questions and challenges arise on a regular basis for our society.

Private employers aren’t exempt from these battles, and the ground is shifting particularly fast regarding transgender employees, persons whose “gender identity, gender expression or gender behavior” does not match their biological sex, according to the American Psychological Association.

The crux of legal complaints by aggrieved employees is that federal sex discrimination laws, which prohibit discrimination based only upon biological sex, also protect persons on the basis of their gender identity. They have found support with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC is the federal agency responsible for enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the principal federal law outlawing discrimination based on gender, race, color, national origin and religion in the private sector. In 2012, an EEOC administrative judge determined that Title VII’s prohibitions on sex discrimination also prohibit discrimination because an employee is transgender. Last year, the agency reaffirmed its position in another administrative appeal.

The EEOC’s administrative actions have led to the development of a new and litigious area of employment law. More employees are filing claims with the agency alleging transgender discrimination, and the agency has filed several discrimination lawsuits against private employers. The EEOC has also filed or announced its intentions to file amicus briefs in at least six different employment discrimination cases involving transgender plaintiffs working their way through the judicial system.

The EEOC’s interpretations of Title VII, including its position on transgender discrimination, do not bind federal courts. To date, federal courts have defined discrimination based upon “sex” only to mean discrimination because a person is male or female, not upon their gender identity. However, the EEOC is often the “canary in the coal mine” foreshadowing shifts in discrimination law.

Although federal courts need not defer to the EEOC’s interpretations of Title VII, the Supreme Court has ruled their interpretations of Title VII are “entitled to respect” under the law. Indeed, just this week a federal appeals court ruled in favor of 16-year-old public high school student, born female but identifies as male, who wanted to use the men’s restrooms. Although this case did not involve the EEOC and was governed by Title IX, which applies to public schools and not private companies, the decision was based upon the court’s opinion that the trial judge did not award appropriate deference to the federal education department’s policy on transgender access to bathrooms.

In sum, there is a strong likelihood that a transgender plaintiff in the private sector will find support from a federal judge in the not-too-distant future under Title VII. Litigation is a very real possibility for all employers, so despite conflicting views on this hot-button issue, all employers should review their policies or establish them.

For most companies, the first question is the same: What about the bathrooms? Bathrooms have become the front lines in the battle over transgender rights, reminiscent of challenges to segregated lunch counters early in the civil rights movement.

Many larger companies have implemented written bathroom policies in accordance with guidelines issued by OSHA, the federal agency responsible for workplace safety. The underlying premise of these policies is that each employee should determine the most appropriate and safest option for themself, regardless of biological sex. Some employer policies include the use of unisex facilities for all workers. While these policies may be easier to implement in an office environment than an industrial one, the position of the government is that employers need to find solutions that are safe and convenient for transgender employees, regardless of the workplace layout. Some employers, not willing to eliminate traditional bathrooms, have constructed or provided unisex bathrooms to address the issue.

The purpose of this article is not to prescribe any particular course of action. That is for each organization to decide on its own (although the addition of single-stall, gender-neutral bathrooms seems reasonable to us). Just know that the culture wars are ones nobody can sit out under developing federal anti-discrimination law.