Since the administration changed in 2025 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regained a quorum after a period of significant disruption, the agency's enforcement priorities and approach have shifted. Despite the uncertainty and transition, 2025 marked a record year for EEOC settlements, resulting in the highest monetary recoveries in the agency's history.

First, the EEOC voted on July 21, 2026, to publish a proposal to abandon 60-year reporting that employers report their workplace demographics in the EEO-1 and similar reports.  Chair Lucas stated that the demographic reports may prompt companies to pursue illegal DEI actions to correct for disparities they uncover. In the past, the EEOC had said that the information gathered is used for enforcement and research, as well as companies' self-assessments. It has also been posted publicly in aggregate form, giving employers an ability to benchmark their workforces by industry and location. Proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register.

Second, the EEOC voted to rescind two longstanding policy documents governing voluntary affirmative action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on June 30. With Executive Order (EO) 11246, the affirmative action EO, rescinded by EO 14173 last year, only the EEOC’s policy documents would allow for voluntary affirmative action. The Supreme Court, as interpreted in United Steelworkers of America v. Weber and Johnson v. Transportation Agency, explained that voluntary affirmative action would have been permissible only in limited, remedial circumstances. These situations typically are when employers could identify a manifest imbalance in a traditionally segregated job category, adopt a temporary and narrowly tailored measure to address it, and avoid unnecessarily trammeling the interests of other employees.

Third, the EEOC has announced it will rescind the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP). UGESP has been in place since 1978 and provides the EEOC’s longstanding framework for evaluating employment tests and other selection procedures, including how employers assess adverse impact and validate selection methods used in hiring, promotion, and other employment decisions. In addition, the EEOC proposes to rescind the recordkeeping provisions associated with UGESP. These provisions currently require employers to maintain records sufficiently to assess the impact of selection procedures and to retain validation documentation where appropriate.

Fourth, the EEOC will move away from using disparate impact theory of discrimination, which is essential for assessment discrimination, which is the UGESP prescribed approach to analysis. The Department of Justice has issued an opinion on June 9, 2026, to the EEOC that its guidelines about disparate-impact liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional. The Office of Legal Counsel found that EEOC’s guidelines pressured employers to engage in racial discrimination. Under those guidelines, employers could be held liable for unequal hiring and promotion outcomes among different groups, without regard to the employer’s likely intent.

Fifth, the EEOC is proposing to revise its regulations implementing the PWFA, specifically the language concerning the interpretation of the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Chair Lucas, before he was Chair and when the regulations were proposed, voted against the regulations because “the rule fundamentally erred in conflating pregnancy and childbirth accommodation with accommodation of the female sex, that is, female biology and reproduction. The Commission extended the new accommodation requirements to reach virtually every condition, circumstance, or procedure that relates to any aspect of the female reproductive system.”

Sixth, the EEOC proposes to rescind its 1980 Guidelines on Discrimination Because of National Origin (RIN 3046-AB40). According to the agency, portions of the guidance are inconsistent with subsequent legal developments, including the Civil Rights Act of 1991 as the guidelines incorrectly presume that English-only workplace rules violate Title VII in certain circumstances.

Seventh, earlier in the year, the EEOC voted to rescind the Harassment Guidance approved on April 29, 2024. The Harassment Guidance covered all types of harassment under the Commission’s purview, including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information. The Harassment Guidance included illustrative examples of what could constitute harassment under the various statutes. The Harassment Guidance came under legal attack, particularly with respect to its discussion of gender identity issues. Moreover, the EEOC justified its decision to rescind based on its belief that the Harassment Guidance constituted unauthorized substantive rulemaking beyond what Title VII authorizes, and the commissioners cited disagreement with the Harassment Guidance’s interpretation of harassment as it related to gender identity.

Finally, the EEOC is taking the stance that much of DEI is illegal and discriminatory. The EEOC is also pursuing religious discrimination to a fault. Therefore, the EEOC activities should be closely monitored by HR today, especially when it comes to AI generated complaints. It is, if not more, important, to document carefully to protect the organization.

Source: Butzel 7/17/26; Law360 7/21/26, 7/6/26; Seyfarth 7/6/26, US Department of Justice 6/9/26, EEOC 1/23/26, Jackson Lewis 1/26/26