The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established by Congress in 1965 to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since then, it has added enforcement of other employment anti-discrimination laws including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.
The EEOC carries out its obligations in several ways, including fielding and investigating complaints of violation of the anti-discrimination laws, issuing guidance on application of the laws, and, on rare occasion, filing lawsuits on behalf of complaining parties.
The EEOC conducts research on common workplace problems. In the past, focus areas have included sexual harassment, discrimination against employees with family caregiving responsibilities, and the plight of migrant workers or marginalized populations. Since the inception of the current administration’s term in January 2025, the priorities and enforcement efforts of the EEOC have changed dramatically. A few recent developments illustrate the changes.
Gender Identity Discrimination Guidance Rescinded
The EEOC frequently issues guidance on new laws or regulations, or when there is a new court case. During the Biden administration, the EEOC updated its published sexual harassment guidance for the first time in decades with a majority of the commissioners approving the update in a 3-2 vote in 2024.
In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, holding that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination “because of sex” protects against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. This was a major decision since no federal law had previously recognized sexual orientation or gender identity as protected statuses.
Upon taking office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168 entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” He also fired two Biden appointed commissioners, leaving the EEOC without a quorum until a new commissioner was recently confirmed.
In January 2026, the commissioners voted 2-1 to rescind the guidance. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas issued a statement: “Federal employment laws against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and Supreme Court precedent interpreting those laws, remain firmly in place.”
There was otherwise little guidance given, and no new guidance was given to replace what was rescinded.
EEOC v. Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast
As stated previously, the EEOC rarely files lawsuits. Its investigation process usually results in a report finding probable cause or no probable cause that discrimination has occurred. If they find probable cause, they will typically attempt to mediate or conciliate a resolution.
If no resolution is achieved, the agency will issue a “right to sue” letter allowing the aggrieved employee to file a private lawsuit. The EEOC itself states that it will “consider several factors, including the nature of the violation, the issues presented, and the wider impact the lawsuit could have on the EEOC’s efforts to combat workplace discrimination” in deciding to sue.
In February, the EEOC sued Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast in federal court in NH alleging that male employees were discriminated against because they were excluded from a company sponsored overnight career development and networking event for women. The event took place at the Mohegan Sun Casino during work time and was paid for entirely by the employer.
A male employee brought a charge of discrimination. Rather than issue a “right to sue” letter, the EEOC filed suit itself. This was the first lawsuit filed by the EEOC in NH in almost a decade. The EEOC has widely announced a focus on “eradicating DEI-related discrimination,” and this action fits with that intention.
DEI-Related Discrimination at Work
Prominently featured on the EEOC’s home page is a press release with the title “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work,” and highlighting the following:
- Under Title VII, DEI initiatives or policies may be unlawful if they involve an employer taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.
- Title VII also prohibits employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying employees or applicants based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in a way that affects their status or deprives them of employment opportunities.
- This prohibition applies to employee activities which are employer-sponsored (including by making available company time, facilities, or premises), such as employee clubs or groups. In the context of DEI programs, unlawful segregation can include limiting membership in workplace groups, such as Employee Resource Groups (ERG), Business Resource Groups (BRGs), or other employee affinity groups, to certain protected groups.
Further signaling the current iteration of the EEOC’s priorities is a December 2025 post on social media platform X by EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas that states: “Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Contact the @USEEOC as soon as possible.”
The EEOC taking to social media to solicit claimants for actions against employers is vastly different, essentially the opposite, of past EEOC leadership seeking to protect marginalized populations by training and educating businesses and fielding complaints initiated by workers.
Compliance Tips
It is noteworthy that Title VII and current U.S. Supreme Court precedent are still good law. It has never been legal to discriminate based on gender, race, religion, disability, or any other protected class, whether that discrimination is in the form of rejecting applicants based on race or putting the proverbial thumb on the scale in favor of a member of a marginalized population when making a promotion decision.
Now, however, employers need to be mindful of avoiding offering training, social events, and resources to one protected group to the exclusion of others. This impacts, as the EEOC suggests, affinity groups, specialized training for particular classes of employees, even if previously underdeveloped, and other similar race or gender-based initiatives.
The workplace complaints have shifted from women alleging that male dominated golf events disadvantaged their career and prospect development to white men arguing that women’s affinity groups discriminate against them. Employers should always be focused on fairness, equity, and hiring and promoting those who meet the qualification criteria for the position. Training of supervisors and managers regarding hiring, firing, and communication around performance is always essential.
Charla Stevens is the principal of Charla Stevens Consulting and is a retired attorney who consults with businesses, nonprofits, and schools on workplace and student issues. She can be reached at charla@charlastevensconsulting.com or charlastevensconsulting.com.
