The EEOC in Transition: A New Enforcement Era Takes Shape

In January 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lost its quorum and General Counsel and entered more than half a year of operational limbo. Having regained its quorum and a new Acting General Counsel in October 2025, what has emerged on the other side is an EEOC that looks and behaves differently: more centralized in its decision-making, with a narrowed focus on only certain kinds of enforcement.

Impact on Litigation

One of the most impactful structural changes involves how litigation is reviewed and initiated. Under the current EEOC, local offices can no longer approve initiating enforcement litigation, and that authority now rests solely with the Commissioners. For employers, this likely means fewer routine filings and more targeted enforcement litigation focused on the EEOC’s stated priorities.

Stated Points of Emphasis

The Commission has been explicit about its priorities: rooting out “DEI”-motivated race and sex discrimination, including preferences “dressed up in similar euphemisms”; combating what it calls anti-American national origin discrimination against U.S. workers; defending a binary view of sex, including single-sex spaces at work; and addressing religious discrimination and harassment, including antisemitism. These new priorities exist on top of the EEOC’s existing frameworks protecting against discrimination and harassment.

Simultaneously, the EEOC is also pursuing a deregulatory agenda, including a May 2026 proposal to rescind EEO-1 demographic reporting regulations and an expected narrowing of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act rule. In short, employers now face more types of claims to defend against but potentially fewer proactive filing requirements at the federal level.

Executive Orders and the New National Enforcement Plan

For the first time, the EEOC now expressly describes itself as an executive-branch agency aligned with administration policy, as opposed to an independent enforcement agency. The Commission formalized its National Enforcement Plan, effective June 4, 2026, covering FY2025-FY2029 and rescinding the Biden-era Strategic Enforcement Plan. The National Enforcement Plan largely tracks a series of Executive Orders issued in early 2025. The highlights include: withdrawing all local district enforcement plans in favor of national and centralized priorities; focusing on intentional discrimination and high-impact cases (as the current EEOC defines high impact); pursuing discrimination claims based on DEI and similar programs; enforcing national-origin discrimination against American workers; prioritizing religious accommodation cases; and defending a binary view of sex. Disparate-impact enforcement has been nearly eliminated from the active docket.

Harassment Guidance Rescinded

On January 22, 2026, the Commission voted 2-1 to rescind the April 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, effective immediately and without notice-and-comment, citing EO 14168 and Texas v. EEOC (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2025). The reasoning is that the EEOC no longer views misgendering and denial of sex-segregated facilities as potential harassment. No replacement has been issued. Chair Lucas has clarified that the rescission does not license unlawful harassment, and the language of Title VII, Bostock, and state law remain unchanged. It is important to remember that many state laws and a federal private right of action under Title VII remain in place.

Majority-Group Discrimination Claims

In June 2025, the Supreme Court held in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that majority-group plaintiffs need not meet a higher evidentiary bar to prevail in discrimination claims. The Commission has reflected this shift in its enforcement activity: On December 17, 2025, Chair Lucas stated in a widely promoted video produced by the EEOC that white men experiencing workplace discrimination may have claims under federal civil rights laws, and the EEOC’s suit against The New York Times is touted as its first such case on behalf of a white man in at least a decade. The agency has also pursued DEI-related investigations or litigation involving high-profile companies, including Nike, Coca-Cola, Northwestern Mutual, and the City of San Francisco. This is a sensitive area to take seriously in drafting or revising your policies.

Religious Accommodation

Religious accommodation has also become an active enforcement area, with 11 religious bias lawsuits filed in FY2025, including against Apple over Sabbath observance. In Bergin v. New York State Unified Court System (2d Cir. July 15, 2026), the EEOC and DOJ took the unique step of filing an amicus brief supporting rehearing in an appellate case where the court had vacated a judgment favoring an employee denied a vaccine-related exemption.

Disparate Impact

Meanwhile, disparate-impact enforcement from the EEOC has ceased: A September 2025 memo directed offices to close all pending disparate-impact-only charges, and a June 2026 DOJ opinion presumed background checks and aptitude tests job-related, thereby removing common legal theories supporting many disparate impact claims. Importantly, disparate impact remains codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k). Neither an executive order nor EEOC guidance can amend the statute itself. In addition, laws at the state level remain in place and, in some cases, state agencies have become more aggressive in their enforcement. This is particularly true as it relates to the impact of artificial intelligence in the candidate screening, hiring, and human resources processes. Because these claims can have a long evidentiary tail, outlasting the current administration, employers should carefully consider whether it is prudent to make policy changes at this time.

Off-Premises and Online Harassment

The rescinded guidance had addressed off-site harassment exposure, including after-hours social media conduct affecting the workplace. That framework has been withdrawn without replacement, though the EEOC still states harassment can occur off-site. Courts, not the agency, will now largely determine the scope of employer obligations here.

The Takeaway

The EEOC has pulled back from disparate-impact theory, rescinded its harassment guidance without a replacement, embraced reverse-discrimination claims, and centralized litigation decisions. Yet the underlying federal statutes and state and local laws remain in place. For employers, managing risk means responding to the current regulatory shifts while understanding that the landscape is likely to look different under a future administration. Compliance programs should be shaped with that reality in mind.

Facing questions about how changes at the EEOC may impact your current workplace policies? Reach out to Ben Johnson or another member of LP’s Employment & Executive Compensation Group.