EEOC Releases New National Enforcement Plan

On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a new National Enforcement Plan (NEP) for fiscal years (FYs) 2025-29. The NEP officially replaces the agency’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for FYs 2024-28. The NEP took effect immediately and is designed to focus and coordinate the EEOC’s work over a multiyear period to advance equal employment opportunity, guiding agency activities including outreach, public education, technical assistance, enforcement and litigation.

Background

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), among others. The agency receives, on average, more than 80,000 formal charges and 250,000 charge inquiries each year. Because it cannot devote equal resources to every matter, the EEOC uses enforcement plans to identify where it will concentrate its attention and resources. The NEP establishes a set of principles and substantive enforcement priorities that will govern agency activities through FY 2029.

Key Changes

Deprioritization of Disparate Impact Claims

The NEP’s explicit deprioritization of disparate impact liability. Under disparate impact theory, an employer can be liable for a neutral policy that produces statistically unequal outcomes between groups, even without any intent to discriminate. Consistent with Executive Order (EO) 14281, the NEP states that the EEOC will prioritize intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) theories and will eliminate the use of disparate impact theories in investigations “to the maximum degree possible.” The agency will not commence, develop or continue litigation based on disparate impact claims.

DEI Programs as an Enforcement Target

The NEP explicitly identifies policies, programs and practices labeled or framed as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) as potential sources of intentional discrimination. The agency will target broad-based employment policies that prefer certain groups based on race or sex. Examples identified in the NEP include:

• Race- or sex-based quotas in any employment action, including hiring, promotions, layoffs and staffing decisions, as well as practices labeled “aspirational goals” that function as proxies for quotas;
• Policies that limit access to internships, fellowships, mentorship or sponsorship programs, apprenticeships, bonuses, fringe benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment based on race or sex;
• Diverse slate policies, diverse hiring panel requirements, requirements that candidates submit diversity statements, and executive compensation tied to race- or sex-based demographic goals; and

• Job advertisements that use language such as “diverse candidates” or similar terms that function as race- or national origin-based filters.

Prioritization of Executive Branch and Administration Objectives

The NEP reaffirms the EEOC’s status as an executive branch agency and states that the commission will use its enforcement discretion to advance Trump administration policy objectives and comply with relevant EOs. This signals that enforcement priorities may continue to shift in alignment with federal executive policy throughout the plan’s duration.

Substantive Enforcement Priorities

Beyond the DEI focus, the NEP identifies several additional categories of priority matters:

• Repeated or overt discrimination, including facially discriminatory policies such as staffing agencies or fellowship programs that exclude individuals based on protected characteristics, channeling employees into roles based on protected characteristics, mass denials of accommodation requests and systemic harassment;
• Cases involving the application of recent Supreme Court precedent, including the analysis of DEI practices following Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the scope of the “some harm” standard under Muldrow v. St. Louis, employers’ religious accommodation obligations under Groff v. DeJoy, and the scope of Bostock v. Clayton County with respect to single-sex spaces and expression of the binary nature of sex; and
• Protecting vulnerable workers, including teenage workers, individuals employed in low-wage jobs, people with limited literacy or education, survivors of sexual assault, and workers with developmental or intellectual disabilities.

Chair Priorities

In addition to the substantive categories above, the NEP identifies four specific priorities of Chair Andrea Lucas that will guide enforcement throughout the NEP’s duration:

1. Remedying DEI-related race and sex discrimination;
2. Protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination;
3. Defending women’s rights to single-sex spaces at work and workers’ rights to express the binary nature of sex; and
4. Protecting workers’ religious liberty rights, including the right to receive religious accommodations and to be free from religious discrimination, harassment and related retaliation.

Employer Takeaways

The new NEP represents a meaningful reorientation of EEOC enforcement priorities. Employers may consider focusing on the following areas:

• Review existing DEI programs. Policies and practices that factor race or sex into hiring, promotions, compensation, or access to training and advancement opportunities carry elevated legal risk. Employers should work with legal counsel to evaluate whether existing DEI initiatives comply with Title VII under the EEOC’s enforcement posture;
• Audit job advertising and candidate screening. Job postings that solicit “diverse candidates” or use language that filters applicants by race, sex or national origin may draw scrutiny under the NEP;
• Revisit compensation structures. Executive bonuses or other compensation tied to race- or sex-based demographic goals are explicitly identified as enforcement targets;
• Assess religious accommodation practices. The NEP signals continued focus on employers’ obligations to provide religious accommodations under Groff v. DeJoy, as well as employee rights to express sincerely held religious beliefs in the workplace; and
• Continue to comply with all federal antidiscrimination laws. While the NEP shifts enforcement priorities, the underlying statutes remain unchanged. Employers are still required to comply with Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, the EPA, the PWFA and all other laws within the EEOC’s jurisdiction. The change in priorities does not diminish liability for violations of these laws.

Article Published By: Zywave, Inc.