Table of Contents i ii iii iv v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Back

EEOC-Initiated Litigation - 2026 Edition

2026 Edition EEOC-Initiated Litigation

EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP

©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | i Dear Clients and Friends, Seyfarth Shaw is once again pleased to provide you with the latest edition of our annual analysis of trends and developments in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission litigation, EEOC-Initiated Litigation: 2026 Edition. This desk reference compiles, analyzes, and categorizes the major case filings and decisions involving the EEOC in 2025 and recaps the major policy and political changes we observed in the past year. The changes of the past year are the most dramatic we have witnessed in our years of following the EEOC, and we have included our observations and predictions for 2026 throughout this reference. Our goal is to guide our readers through all aspects of EEOC-initiated action, and to empower corporate counsel, human resources professionals, and operations teams to make sound and informed legal and business decisions. We hope that you find this report useful. And there is so much to explore. The second Trump administration began with a major leadership shake-up. Commissioner Andrea Lucas was elevated to the role of Acting Chair (and eventually Chair); Democratic appointees Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels were terminated from their Commissioner positions; and General Counsel Karla Gilbride was also terminated. As a result, the agency lacked the quorum needed to exercise many of its powers until late in the calendar year when a new Commissioner was confirmed. Before the quorum was restored, Chair Lucas used the power of the bully pulpit to announce new directions in line with the administration’s priorities and modified administrative procedures to affect how charges are handled. The EEOC also was impacted by budget changes and the lengthy federal government shutdown. What these developments mean for employers will be discussed in detail herein. Part I of this reference introduces the key players in the EEOC, and how their unique views on employment and societal issues will shape real-world application of EEO statutes. Part II is an in-depth review of the EEOC’s evolving strategic priorities. This includes a fascinating overview of the agency’s changed perspective on charges related to DEI policies, gender identity, American national origin discrimination, and religious discrimination and accommodation, among a host of other topics. Back by popular demand, Part III includes a detailed profile of each EEOC District. Practitioners who work with and litigate against the EEOC quickly appreciate that each District has a unique personality and often differing substantive focus areas. It is all about location, location, location. Part IV paints the EEOC by the numbers: an empirical analysis of how the EEOC actually targeted employment issues in 2025, and how those trends will translate to activity in 2026. Part V is a deeper dive into how the EEOC has addressed particular industries, identifying which sectors tend to land in the EEOC’s crosshairs most often, why, and for which issues. Part VI explores the various ways EEOC actions are resolved, from confidential conciliation to Court-ordered Consent Decrees. Finally, Part VII provides related guidance concerning how the EEOC leverages the media at various stages in a case. A special thanks to the team of talented lawyers and professionals who made this publication possible with tireless efforts throughout the year. This book is meant to be the start of a conversation, and we are standing by to address any further questions or issues our readers wish to share. Christopher J. DeGroff (Editor) Andrew L. Scroggins (Editor)

ii | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP AUTHORS Michael D. Jacobsen Partner Chicago (312) 460-5232 mjacobsen@seyfarth.com Yoon-Woo Nam Partner Sacramento (916) 498-7023 ynam@seyfarth.com Ridhima Bhalla Associate Chicago (312) 460-5763 rbhalla@seyfarth.com Nicholas A. Gillard-Byers Partner Seattle (206) 946-4997 ngillard-byers@seyfarth.com Christopher W. Kelleher Senior Counsel Boston (617) 946-4811 ckelleher@seyfarth.com Sarah Bauman Associate Chicago (312) 460-5643 sbauman@seyfarth.com Christopher J. DeGroff Partner and Complex Discrimination Litigation Practice Group Co-Chair Chicago, Co-Editor (312) 460-5982 cdegroff@seyfarth.com J. Todd Bernhardt Associate San Francisco (415) 544-1071 tbernhardt@seyfarth.com Andrew L. Scroggins Partner and Complex Discrimination Litigation Practice Group Co-Chair Chicago, Co-Editor (312) 460-5275 ascroggins@seyfarth.com Alexandra R. Hassell Counsel Boston (617) 946-8347 ahassell@seyfarth.com

©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | iii A particular acknowledgment of all of the tireless efforts of Practice Development Manager Amy Abate in developing this resource and to Senior Brand Manager Ray Kenyon for his exceptional design and layout of the book. Julia M. Tape Associate Houston (713) 238-1828 jtape@seyfarth.com Sidra Muntaha Senior Fellow Chicago (312) 460-5728 smuntaha@seyfarth.com Erin A. Murray Associate Dallas (469) 608-6769 emurray@seyfarth.com Taylor Iaculla Associate Chicago (312) 460-5796 tiaculla@seyfarth.com James P. Nasiri Associate Chicago (312) 460-5976 jnasiri@seyfarth.com Clara L. Rademacher Associate San Francisco (415) 732-1126 crademacher@seyfarth.com Samantha L. Brooks Associate Washington, DC (202) 828-3560 sbrooks@seyfarth.com Elizabeth L. Humphrey Associate Houston (713) 238-1809 ehumphrey@seyfarth.com Hannah Sosenko Associate Chicago (312) 460-5294 hsosenko@seyfarth.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: Agency Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Composition and Background . . . . . ...... 1 B. EEOC Recent Staffing Challenges and Budgetary Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 2 C. EEOC Prof iles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... 3 PARTII: EEOC’sEnforcementPriorities...................................................5 A. EEOC’s FY 2026 Cornerstone Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... 5 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................... 5 2. Particular FY 2026 Strategic Enforcement Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 6 3. EEOC and Wage Hour Division Memorandum of Understanding . . . . . . . . ......... 10 4. Impact of LoperBright............................................................ 11 5. Recent EEOC Guidance on Vision and Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 12 6. Focus Area: Hearing Impairment Issues in Recruiting and Hiring . . . . . . . . .........13 7. Staffing Company Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................13 8. Amicus Briefs and Other Noteworthy Filings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... 14 9. EEOC Stepping Down from Several Lawsuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... 19 10. Changes within the Federal Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... 20 B. EEOC Focus on Pregnancy Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................21 1. The Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 21 2. Pregnancy-Related Lawsuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 21 3. Subpoena Enforcement Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................... 23 C. Changing Enforcement Priorities To Protect Workers Against Discrimination . . . . .... 23 1. Ames Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................. 24 2. National Origin Discrimination To Protect American Workers . . . . . . . . . .......... 24 D. Religious Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... 25 E. EEOC Focus on Equal Pay Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ 28 F. Preventing Discrimination In Recruiting and Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. 29 1. Artificial Intelligence and Technology in Recruiting and Hiring . . . . . . . . . ......... 29 2. Other Technology in Hiring and the Path Ahead on AI . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 32 3. Job Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 33 iv | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP

4. Job Segregation or Steering Based on Protected Characteristics . . . . . . . ....... 33 5. Focus Area: Shifts in Enforcement for Underrepresented Groups . . . . . . . ....... 34 G. Preventing Harassment In The Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... 35 1. Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 36 2. Harassment in Virtual Work Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... 36 3. Scope of Hostile Work Environment Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... 36 H. EEOC’s Emphasis on Combatting Systemic Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 37 PART III: District Office Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 PARTIV: ByTheNumbers:EEOCDataAnalysis..........................................61 A. Trends in EEOC Federal Court Filings in FY 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 61 B. EEOC Charge Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. 65 PART V: Industry Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 A. Hospitality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... 69 B. Healthcare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... 70 C. Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................... 71 D. Retail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... 72 E. Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................... 73 F. Transportation & Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... 74 PARTVI: EEOCCaseResolution........................................................ 76 A. Resolution Through Conciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 76 B. Consent Decrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................... 78 1. General Description of a Consent Decree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 78 2. Common Provisions of a Consent Decree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 79 C. EEOC Settlement Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. 81 D. Trial Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................... 82 PARTVII: MediaandPublicityElementsofanEEOCCase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Seyfarth’sComplexLitigationResources.................................................91 AdditionalResources................................................................... 92 ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | v

1 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP PART I: Agency Composition A. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Composition and Background In FY 2025, the EEOC entered a period of sweeping change that reshaped its priorities and approach. Following the inauguration of President Donald Trump for his second term, the new administration took a series of swift actions that had a significant impact on EEOC leadership and enforcement. First, President Trump elevated Commissioner Andrea R. Lucas to Acting Chair, a standard exercise of executive prerogative. Next, he terminated EEOC General Counsel Karla Gilbride, following precedent set by President Biden, who had terminated the previous EEOC General Counsel, a Trump nominee, shortly after taking office. Then in an action without precedent, President Trump fired two Democratic Commissioners, Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which created the EEOC, Commissioners serve for fixed five-year terms, and there is no provision to remove a Commissioner “for cause.” The unprecedented firings ended a Democratic majority that was poised to continue until at least mid-2026 and left the Commission with only two members—Acting Chair Lucas and Democratic Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal. With only two Commissioners for most of 2025, the EEOC lacked a quorum, limiting its authority to act in furtherance of its statutory duties and to pursue the priorities set by the Trump Administration and Acting Chair Lucas. For example, without a quorum, the Acting Chair may revoke or revise technical assistance documents 1 issued under the authority of prior Chairs, but cannot rescind formal guidance previously issued with majority approval from a validly constituted quorum of Commissioners, such as the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace 2 or Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) rules.3 Similarly, during 2025 litigation was curtailed without a quorum but not halted. The rules in place throughout 2025 required the Commission itself to authorize the initiation of certain new lawsuits, while the EEOC General Counsel was responsible for “conducting” EEOC litigation. Since the termination of General Counsel Gilbride, the EEOC’s General Counsel role has been filled on a temporary basis pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Regular litigation and investigations are conducted by EEOC career staff, who continue the day-to-day activity of the agency unless and until further action is taken. Under a delegation of litigation authority adopted in January 2021 and in effect until January 2026, some categories of litigation required approval by a majority of Commissioners while others were left to the discretion of the General Counsel.4 Under this framework, Commissioners were required to vote to approve the following categories of litigation: recommendations for the Commission to file an amicus brief; cases alleging systemic discrimination or “pattern-or-practice” discrimination; cases requiring major expenditure of agency resources; cases taking positions contrary to Circuit precedent; and cases presenting novel or unsettled legal issues likely to generate public controversy. All other litigation could be brought by the General Counsel without prior approval. The absence of a quorum for most of 2025 is reflected in the EEOC’s litigation: just 93 lawsuits were filed in FY 2025 (a record low), and the vast majority of them (about 75%) were filed on behalf of just one individual and without seeking to change the law. 1 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Guidance, https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-guidance. 2 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, https://web.archive.org/ web/20260120031142/https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-harassment-workplace. This guidance was revoked on January 22, 2026, after a quorum was restored. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Jan. 23, 2026), https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoccommission-votes-rescind-2024-harassment-guidance. 3 29 CFR 1636, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/part-1636. 4 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Resolution Concerning the Commission’s Authority to Commence or Intervene in Litigation and the Commission’s Interest in Information Concerning Appeals (Jan. 13, 2021), https://www.eeoc.gov/resolution-concerning-commissions-authoritycommence-or-intervene-litigation-and-commissions-0. On January 22, 2026, the Commission approved a new resolution that changed the delegation authority. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Resolution Concerning the Commission’s Authority to Commence or Intervene in Litigation and the Commission’s Interest in Information Concerning Appeals (Jan. 22, 2026), https://www.eeoc.gov/resolution-concerningcommissions-authority-commence-or-intervene-litigation.

©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 2 The composition of the EEOC has changed in ways that are expected to reverberate through 2026. On July 31, 2025, the Senate confirmed then-Acting Chair Lucas to an additional term as Commissioner through July 1, 2030. On November 6, 2025, Lucas was designated Chair. Lucas has repeatedly articulated her continued alignment with the Trump Administration’s priorities. On October 7, 2025, the Senate confirmed Brittany Panuccio as the third Commissioner of the EEOC, restoring the EEOC’s quorum and establishing a Republican majority. On November 19, 2025, President Trump submitted to the Senate his nominee for General Counsel at the EEOC, naming M. Carter Crow, a management-side lawyer currently working as the Global Head of Employment and Labor for law firm Norton Rose Fulbright. With these personnel changes, we can expect to see the EEOC’s rule-making, investigation, and litigation priorities to stay centered around the Trump administration’s stated goals, which include ending DEI practices, favoring workers of American national origin, prioritizing accommodation of religious beliefs and opposing harassment based on religion, and particularly antisemitism, and defending a binary view of sex and related rights. Indeed, some noteworthy changes already have begun. On January 14, 2026, in its first public meeting of the Commission after the quorum was restored, Chair Lucas and Commissioner Panuccio voted to rescind voting procedures enacted in the final weeks of the Biden Administration, giving the Chair sole authority to set the agenda and dates for public meetings and to decide what issues will be voted on without a public meeting. On January 22, 2026, the Commission met again. During this meeting, the litigation delegation rules were changed by a 2-1 vote. Under the new rules, approval by a majority of Commissioners is required for substantially all litigation. The Commission also voted to rescind the 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, with the document removed from the agency’s website before the end of the day. B. EEOC Recent Staffing Challenges and Budgetary Constraints Title VII confers on the EEOC’s Chair the sole responsibility “for the administrative operations of the Commission.” 5 The Chair is responsible for hiring members of the career Senior Executive Service, and evaluating and managing the EEOC’s cadre of Senior Executives. In other words, the Chair is directly responsible for hiring and evaluating the performance of the 15 District Directors across the country, as well as other Senior Executives in the agency. Moreover, the Chair’s responsibility for the “administrative operations” of the EEOC includes the ability, exercised through the EEOC’s Chief Operating Officer, to allocate the EEOC’s budget to its various programs and operational efforts. While the Commission as a whole must vote on certain appropriations, the Chair has broad authority in making adjustments—both large and small—to how the Commission spends its money. Chair Lucas and her staff are responsible for advocating before Congress for changes to the EEOC’s budget, and the Chair is also responsible for deciding exactly how the EEOC spends additional money appropriated by Congress. During the early years of the Biden Administration, the EEOC sought and received significant budget increases, which it invested in hiring front-line enforcement and litigation personnel. In more recent years, budget pressures have left the EEOC with less to work with. In FY 2023, the EEOC received $455 million in funding. For the following year, the EEOC sought a 5.7% increase, but Congress declined the request and held the EEOC’s budget at the previous year’s amount. This put the EEOC in a bind, as President Biden had earlier issued an executive order that granted federal employees a 5.2% pay raise, and pay and benefits already were the agency’s largest expense (74% of the EEOC’s budget). The mandated pay increase still had to be covered despite that the agency budget allocation remained flat, leading Chair Burrows to implement multiple fiscal austerity measures, including reduced hiring and cuts to various programs like reduced travel and training, and narrowly avoiding a furlough. The fiscal constraints continued into FY 2025. The EEOC again requested a budget increase, this time to $488 million, and Congress once again declined the request and held the EEOC’s budget at the same level as FY 2023. 5 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4

3 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Under Chair Lucas, this trend changed, though perhaps not in the way expected. For FY 2026, the Commission actually scaled back its budget request to $435 million. This reduced number signals that the Commission will look to slash programs and headcount under President Trump’s second administration and new EEOC leadership. C. EEOC Profiles Kalpana Kotagal (Commissioner, Democrat) Kalpana Kotagal joined the EEOC on August 9, 2023, and her term expires July 1, 2027. Before joining the Commission, she was in private practice, focusing on litigating worker-side civil rights issues. She is a co-author of the “Inclusion Rider” – a voluntary agreement between actors, filmmakers and studios aimed at advancing equal opportunity in the film industry both behind the camera and in front of it. Brittany Bull Panuccio (Commissioner, Republican) Brittany Bull Panuccio joined the EEOC as Commissioner on October 27, 2025, and her term expires July 1, 2029. Before joining the EEOC, she served in various roles within the federal government, including Assistant U.S. Attorney for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. During the first Trump Administration, Commissioner Panuccio served as Attorney Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education, followed by Special Counselor in the Office of the General Counsel. Further, Commissioner Panuccio detailed to the U.S. Department of Justice to assist with the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and clerked for the Honorable Neomi Rao of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Hon. Don R. Willett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Commissioner Panuccio also worked in private practice, focusing on Title VII, NLRA, FLSA, and defamation/ contract matters. Andrea R. Lucas (Chair, Republican) Andrea R. Lucas joined the EEOC as Commissioner in 2020 and was designated Acting Chair by President Trump on December 20, 2025. She was re-nominated for another term and confirmed by the Senate on July 31, 2025 for a term expiring July 1, 2030. On November 6, 2025, she was designated Chair of the EEOC. Prior to her appointment to the EEOC, Chair Lucas practiced management‑side employment law at a large Washington, D.C. law firm. She continues to garner media coverage for her cautionary advice to employers regarding their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. She is also known for emphasizing issues relating to religious discrimination, accommodation, and inclusion; accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions; and disability accommodation.

©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 4 Shannon Royce (Chief of Staff) Shannon Royce began her role as Chief of Staff for the EEOC in April 2025. Previously, she served as Director of the Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the first Trump administration. In that role, she led the Department’s efforts to build and support partnerships with faith-based and community organizations. She also served in executive leadership in several non-profit organizations and in legislative and legal roles to two U.S. Senators. Amanda Smith (Director of OCLA) Amanda Smith was appointed Director of the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs (OCLA) in June 2025. She previously served as a senior advisor to the Republican National Committee and Communications Director at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the first Trump Administration, and worked in communications roles for two members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Most recently, Andrea Smith co-led government affairs communications at Lockheed Martin. Sharon Rose (Chief Operating Officer) Sharon Rose became COO for the agency on July 8, 2025. Previously, she served as senior counsel to the Office of the Solicitor at the Department of Labor and advised the Office of the Secretary and its agencies on a variety of regulatory, enforcement, and litigation matters. Before working in government service, Sharon Rose co-founded a boutique litigation firm, focusing on government enforcement and employment discrimination litigation. She also practiced in the Washington and Singapore offices of an international law firm. M. Carter Crow (Nominee for General Counsel) M. Carter Crow was nominated on November 19, 2025, for the position of EEOC General Counsel. At the time of publication, he has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. Crow obtained his law degree from University of Oklahoma College of Law in 1991 and entered private practice with Norton Rose Fulbright. Since 2022, he has served as the firm’s global head of the labor and employment practice.

5 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP PART II: EEOC’s Enforcement Priorities The following section outlines the foundational EEOC documents that answer two fundamental agency questions: what are the EEOC’s strategic priorities, and how will the EEOC effectuate those priorities? The EEOC is clear that, at least for now, it operates under a plan that addresses six key areas. The EEOC lacked the quorum needed to change these documents in FY 2025. However, as discussed further, how these priorities are interpreted, and the vigor of enforcement efforts has changed significantly. 1 Eliminating Barriers In Recruitment and Hiring 4Advancing Equal Pay for All Workers 2Protecting Vulnerable Workers and Persons from Underserved Communities 5Preserving Access to the Legal System 3Addressing Selected Emerging and Developing Issues 6Preventing and Remedying Systemic Harassment A. EEOC’s FY 2026 Cornerstone Documents 1. Background The EEOC identifies its enforcement priorities in its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”). Along with the SEP, the EEOC also outlines its enforcement strategies through its Strategic Plan.6 Despite the similarity in their titles, these plan documents serve two distinct purposes. The SEP lays out the Commission’s specific priorities by highlighting certain areas of law or groups of workers that it will aim to address over the next four years. The Strategic Plan describes how the EEOC will achieve its strategic mission, including executing on the priorities contained in the SEP. In the words of the EEOC, the Strategic Plan “establishes a framework for achieving the EEOC’s mission to ‘prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination and advance equal employment opportunity for all.’” The EEOC unveiled its first SEP more than a decade ago in December 2012, stating that the plan “established substantive area priorities and set forth strategies to integrate all components of EEOC’s private, public, and federal sector enforcement to have a sustainable impact in advancing equal opportunity and freedom from discrimination in the workplace.” According to the EEOC “the purpose of the [SEP] is to focus and coordinate the EEOC’s programs to have a sustainable impact in reducing and deterring discriminatory practices in the workplace.” The Commission’s six major enforcement priorities have remained relatively consistent across multiple iterations of the SEP. But the EEOC can and has changed how it interprets those priorities over the life of those documents. Moreover, the SEP does not fully constrain the agency in terms of what it actually enforces. The EEOC is not legally bound to strictly enforce the priorities set forth in its SEP, and the EEOC can still pursue cases that it deems important outside of these priorities. These realities have often led to shifts in how the EEOC approaches litigation and the topics and issues it chooses to enforce in the federal courts. 6 See Christopher DeGroff, James Nasiri, and Rachel See, EEOC Adopts 2022-2026 Strategic Plan With an Emphasis on Large-Scale Litigation, Improving Internal EEOC Processes, Workplace Class Action Blog (Aug. 23, 2023), https://www.workplaceclassaction.com/2023/08/eeoc-adopts2022-2026-strategic-plan-with-an-emphasis-on-large-scale-litigation-improving-internal-eeoc-processes/.

©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 6 The EEOC released its current SEP on September 21, 2023, when the agency was still under Democratic leadership, to cover fiscal years 2024-2028.7 It may only be revised or withdrawn by a majority vote of the Commission operating with a quorum, a fact that is pointedly highlighted at the top the webpage that hosts the information since soon after the Trump administration began.8 While the document has not been formally changed, how the enforcement priorities are construed has changed in notable ways. Moreover, now that the EEOC’s quorum has been restored under the Republican leadership of Chair Lucas, the agency is positioned to formally modify the 2024-2028 SEP, and likely will do so to reflect the new GOP majority’s strategic priorities. Indeed, when the current SEP was issued, thenCommissioner Lucas voted against it.9 She further made a point to note as Acting Chair that she could not unilaterally remove or modify documents such as the SEP based on her authority in that capacity.10 The new quorum may change the existing SEP’s focus areas in significant ways to align with the actual enforcement trends, such as by shifting away from protecting certain groups such as immigrant workers and toward addressing alleged employment practices that favor non-American workers over American workers, potentially resulting in an updated version of the document that looks quite different than it does today. 2. Particular FY 2026 Strategic Enforcement Priorities The EEOC’s current SEP is focused on six different strategic enforcement priorities: (1) eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring; (2) protecting vulnerable workers from underserved communities; (3) addressing selected emerging and developing issues; (4) advancing equal pay for all workers; (5) preserving access to the legal system; and (6) preventing and remedying systemic harassment. Importantly, these priorities are not mutually exclusive. The interpretation of those priorities has changed under the Trump administration, sometimes in dramatic fashion. Eliminating Barriers In Recruitment and Hiring. The first strategic enforcement priority is eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring. The EEOC’s focus within this priority has been to address recruiting and hiring practices that “discriminate on any basis unlawful under the statutes EEOC enforces, including sex, race, national origin, color, religion, age, and disability.” The EEOC has spent a considerable amount of its enforcement budget litigating issues that it sees as barriers to recruitment and hiring. In recent years, there have been a number of judicial decisions involving the EEOC’s attempts to combat discrimination, including the use of pre-employment screening tests. The FY 2024-2028 SEP added far more detail about the types of hiring practices and policies to be scrutinized. For example, prior SEPs described the EEOC’s intention to prevent steering members of protected groups into specific (often less desirable) jobs. The FY 2024-2028 SEP goes further to explain that the EEOC also will be examining whether employers are segregating workers in jobs, or by job duties, based on membership in a protected group. Other areas of focus include examining practices that may limit access to work opportunities, such as advertising jobs in a manner that excludes or discourages some protected groups from applying, or denying training, internships, or apprenticeships; scrutinizing whether employers are denying opportunities to move from temporary to permanent roles, including when permanent positions are available; and investigating whether adverse impact results from the use of technology, AI, and machine learning used in job advertisements, recruiting, and hiring decisions. The EEOC has, historically, focused on recruiting and hiring in part because private plaintiffs’ counsel have been unwilling to champion large scale hiring cases due to cost and challenges identifying potential victims. In particular, the EEOC has scrutinized recruiting and hiring processes to determine whether 7 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Press Release: EEOC Releases Strategic Enforcement Plan (Sept. 21, 2023), https://www.eeoc. gov/newsroom/eeoc-releases-strategic-enforcement-plan. 8 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Strategic Enforcement Plan Fiscal Years 2024 – 2028, https://www.eeoc.gov/strategicenforcement-plan-fiscal-years-2024-2028 (“This Strategic Enforcement Plan was approved by the Commission on September 18, 2023, by a 3-2 vote. Modification requires a vote of the Commission.”), 9 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Press Release: Removing Gender Ideology and Restoring the EEOC’s Role of Protecting Women in the Workplace (Jan. 28, 2025), eeoc.gov/newsroom/removing-gender-ideology-and-restoring-eeocs-role-protecting-women-workplace. 10 Id.

7 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP they are carried out in a way that may result in discrimination against certain groups of individuals, often pursuant to a disparate impact theory of liability. This approach changed with the signing of Executive Order 14281, which directs all federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of claims predicated on a disparate impact theory of liability. Indeed, the Executive Order declares, “It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible,” in a dramatic shift away from a key theory the EEOC relied on historically to attack recruiting and hiring issues.11 In a May 20, 2025 press release, Chair Lucas stated that the EEOC will not pursue investigations or litigation that challenge neutral practices that have unequal outcomes based on protected characteristics pursuant to EO 14281.12 This removes a significant tool from the EEOC’s arsenal. The EEOC has also in the SEP called out “continued underrepresentation” of women and workers of color in certain industries, naming construction and manufacturing, high tech, STEM, and finance in particular, and indicated its intent to monitor those benefiting from substantial federal investment. This approach by the agency also is likely to end, as it disclaims the notion that discrimination can be determined by looking at group outcomes. Protecting Vulnerable Workers from Underserved Communities. The second strategic enforcement priority is aimed at combatting policies and practices that impact “particularly vulnerable workers.” For purposes of the SEP, the EEOC has traditionally viewed “vulnerable workers” as those who may be unaware of their rights under equal employment opportunity laws, or reluctant or unable to exercise those rights. The EEOC’s FY 2024-2028 SEP, in a change from prior versions of the SEP, called out 11 different categories of vulnerable workers: 11 Exec. Order No. 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, 90 FR 17537 (2025). 12 Message from EEOC Acting Chair Lucas about Opening of 2024 EEO-1 Component Data Collection, (May 20, 2025), https://content.govdelivery.com/ accounts/USEEOC/bulletins/3e1407f. 13 EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas (X, Dec. 17, 2025), x.com/andrealucaseeoc/status/2001439099907961012?s=46; (LinkedIn, Dec. 17, 2025), https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrea-lucas-a5b27513_eeoc-eeo-dei-activity-7407229146071793664-xjBF?utm_source=share&utm_ medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAF-8VABEzz0MbGPND0fxustjLgniQTy4BE; • immigrant and migrant workers; • individuals employed in low wage jobs and/or their first jobs, including teenage workers; • individuals with arrest or conviction records; • LGBTQI+ individuals; • Native Americans/Alaska Natives; • older workers; • people with developmental or intellectual disabilities; • people with mental health related disabilities; • persons with limited literacy or English proficiency; • temporary workers; and • survivors of gender-based violence. Importantly, under the Trump administration, there has been a shift away from some of these categories, with the most notable examples being LGBTQI+ individuals and immigrant and migrant workers. For example, the EEOC withdrew from pending litigation it had filed on behalf of individuals with claims based on gender identity, a topic that is discussed in more detail in Section A.9. Likewise, announcements and enforcement actions over the past year have instead decried discrimination against those of U.S. national origin where employers are said to favor foreign workers. Notably, on December 17, 2025, Chair Lucas posted a video on social media sites stating that white males who have experienced discrimination at work based on their race or sex “may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws” and inviting them to contact the agency “as soon as possible.”13 These changes are discussed in more detail in Section C.

©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 8 Addressing Selected Emerging and Developing Issues. The third strategic priority addresses selected emerging and developing issues. As the name implies, the EEOC may adapt its focus within this priority on a year-to-year basis in accordance with developing case law and societal movements. Thus, this strategic priority is something of a “wild card.” As a government agency, the EEOC is responsible for monitoring trends and developments in the law, workplace practices, and labor force demographics. Not surprisingly, the emerging issues identified by the agency have evolved over time. For example, the 2017 SEP identified five emerging and developing issues as strategic priorities: (1) qualification standards and inflexible leave policies that discriminate against individuals with disabilities; (2) accommodating pregnancy-related limitations under the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act and Pregnancy Discrimination Act; (3) protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQI+) individuals from discrimination based on sex; (4) clarifying the employment relationship and the application of workplace civil rights protections in light of the increasing complexity of employment relationships and structures; and (5) addressing discriminatory practices against those who are Muslim or Sikh, or persons of Arab, Middle Eastern or South Asian descent, as well as persons perceived to be members of these groups, arising from backlash against them from tragic events in the United States and abroad. The FY 2024-2028 SEP moved away from some of the earlier categories and introduces some new emerging issues. For example, few issues had attracted as much of the EEOC’s attention in recent years as its campaign to have LGBTQI+ discrimination recognized as a prohibited form of discrimination under Title VII. That issue was answered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020 in the landmark decision of Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia, which held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against gay or transgender employees as a form of sex discrimination. Following that decision, the EEOC moved the issue off its list of emerging and developing issues, apparently believing it to have been fully embraced in the EEO universe. However, while that might have been the case then, the EEOC under now-Chair Lucas has reversed course on these matters, including removing its interpretations applying Bostock to LGBTQ workers from its website. The SEP’s focus on protecting pregnant workers remains as an emerging issue. In FY 2025, the EEOC filed numerous lawsuits asserting pregnancy-related violations. This emphasis on pregnancy-related issues aligns with public statements by Chair Lucas, who has placed an emphasis on enforcing protections in this area. It is important to note, however, that the Commission under Chair Lucas’s leadership has narrowed the scope of pregnancy-related claims it is pursuing, focusing on claims regarding pregnancy and childbirth rather than broader aspects of the female reproductive system. The EEOC’s actions in advancing this goal are addressed in more detail in Section B. Likewise, the SEP maintains its focus on “backlash” discrimination, premised on the idea that discrimination against some groups can arise as a backlash in response to local, national, or global events. The EEOC identifies in the SEP some groups in particular, including Jews; Muslims; racial or ethnic groups; and LGBTQI+ individuals, but also notes that the groups at issue, and the practices they are subjected to, can be0enforcement under this element of the SEP has largely been focused on combatting antisemitism. This is discussed in Section D. The final topic under this priority is “technology-related employment discrimination,” with the EEOC’s stated interest to be in employment decisions based on algorithmic decision-making, as well as automated recruitment, selection, production, and performance management tools. The EEOC has instead deprioritized this issue over the past year, even removing earlier guidance documents on the topic from its website.

9 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Advancing Equal Pay for All Workers. The fourth strategic priority is advancing enforcement of pay discrimination laws, including the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. We cover the key focus areas relative to this strategic priority in Part II(E). In the past, the EEOC’s primary focus has been combating discrimination in pay based on sex. The FY 2024-2028 SEP revises this priority to make clearer that it intends to focus on pay discrimination based on any protected category. The SEP departs from prior versions in two other notable ways. First, it includes a statement indicating that the EEOC will not depend on charges from members of the public, but will use its authority to initiate directed investigations and Commissioner’s charges in order to facilitate enforcement. Second, the EEOC states its intent to challenge practices that it perceives may impede equal pay, or contribute to pay disparities, including secrecy policies, discouraging or prohibiting workers from sharing pay information, and “reliance on past salary history or applicants’ salary expectations to set pay.” The partnership between the EEOC and the Department of Labor that was announced in 2023, provides the agency an additional source for information that could fuel investigations in this area. We cover the Memorandum of Understanding setting forth this partnership in Part II(A)(3). That said, the focus on equal pay appears at this time to be in name only, as enforcement actions are uncommon. In FY 2025, the EEOC did not file any complaints alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act. Preserving Access to the Legal System. The fifth strategic priority is preserving access to the legal system, and it is largely unchanged from the prior version on this topic. The focus within this priority is on policies or practices that discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights, including any policies that deter or prohibit filing charges with the EEOC or cooperating freely in EEOC investigations, as well as, according to the EEOC, “overly broad waivers, releases, non-disclosure agreements, or non-disparagement agreements,” failure to maintain applicant and employee data, and retaliatory practices that dissuade employees from exercising their rights. This objective has historically been reflected in the EEOC’s aggressive assertion of retaliation claims against employers allegedly obstructing employees’ efforts to participate in EEOC proceedings or otherwise oppose discrimination. The EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation states that retaliation occurs when an employer takes a materially adverse action because an individual has engaged, or may engage, in protected activity that is in furtherance of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Equal Pay Act, or Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Retaliation claims premised on EEO-related activity are comprised of three elements: (1) protected activity through “participation” in an EEO process or “opposition” to discrimination; (2) materially adverse action taken by the employer; and (3) the requisite level of causal connection between the protected activity and the materially adverse action. Of the 93 cases that were filed by the EEOC in FY 2025, 33 cases – or roughly 35% – involved retaliation allegations, signaling the EEOC’s continued interest in pursuing such claims and in turn, the interests of employees’ ability to pursue their rights under the anti-discrimination laws. In the past year, the EEOC has added a new course of action consistent with this section of the SEP: publishing guidance documents advising the public of their right to file certain types of charges. For example, in March 2025 the EEOC released a one page document titled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” explaining what may constitute DEI-related discrimination, who can be affected, and how to contact the EEOC to report such a claim.14 In November 2025, the EEOC released another one-page document titled “Discrimination Against American Workers Is Against The Law,” explaining different forms of potential discrimination against American workers and how to file a charge in the event of a violation.15 These topics are discussed further in Section C.2. 14 https://www.eeoc.gov/what-do-if-you-experience-discrimination-related-dei-work. 15 https://www.eeoc.gov/discrimination-against-american-workers-against-law.

©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 10 Preventing and Remedying Systemic Harassment. The sixth strategic priority is preventing and remedying systemic harassment, both in-person and online. This priority is directed at harassment, including sexual harassment and harassment based on sex, race, disability, age, national origin, religion, and color. This strategic priority will continue to focus on systemic cases. The EEOC views harassment as an ongoing and serious issue in the U.S. workplace. The EEOC has had ample opportunity to shape the law of sexual harassment through its litigation activities. Those cases often hinge on two issues: whether the alleged actions rise to the level of unlawful harassment, and whether an employer can be held liable for harassment perpetrated by employees. In FY 2025, there was a total of 28 cases involving harassment claims and 24 of those cases alleged sexual harassment. Additional information on this strategic priority and related case filings appears in Part II(G). Of note, the FY 2024-2028 SEP expressly calls out harassment based on pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation. As noted above, while protections for pregnant workers has remained a priority under this administration, issues related to gender identity and sexual orientation have been de‑prioritized and in some instances abandoned entirely. Continued Reliance on Systemic Investigations and Litigation to Advance Strategic Goals. In the FY 2024-2028 SEP, the “Commission once again reaffirms its commitment to the agency’s systemic program.” The EEOC traditionally looks to its SEP priorities to decide what types of systemic investigations and cases to pursue. As discussed above, however, the EEOC’s actual enforcement trends under the new administration have veered far from what is in the current written document, which itself is due for an overhaul now that the EEOC has a quorum. While FY 2025 was a quiet year in terms of EEOC litigation, a close analysis of the EEOC’s strategic litigation decisions can help employers identify key compliance areas going forward. For instance, although the EEOC under the Trump administration is unlikely to pursue LGBTQI+-related litigation, the Commission remains focused on vigorously enforcing pregnancy and disability discrimination laws in the workplace. Lawsuits over workplace DEI programs are likely to be another priority. 3. EEOC and Wage Hour Division Memorandum of Understanding On September 13, 2023, the EEOC and the Department of Labor Wage Hour Division (WHD) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) enabling information sharing, joint investigations, training, and outreach.16 The MOU empowers the agencies’ field staff to coordinate efforts on both individual matters and larger investigations.17 The MOU’s information-sharing and other contemplated coordinated activity provisions cover a broad range of activities, touching on all aspects of EEOC and WHD jurisdiction. For example, the MOU explicitly describes that each agency will make complaint referrals to the other, that the two will share complaint or investigative files, EEO-1 reports and FLSA records, and “statistical analyses or summaries,” and that the agencies “will explore ways to efficiently facilitate” the data sharing. Information sharing under the MOU is not limited to just top-level agency officials in Washington, DC; leadership from each agency’s District (or Regional) offices may request information without the need to first obtain approval from HQ in Washington, DC. Importantly, the EEOC District Directors and Regional Attorneys may also designate other EEOC employees to make the request. This means that front-line EEOC staff involved in enforcement and litigation can quickly assess a wide range of information held by WHD. It is also noteworthy that the MOU allows any EEOC Commissioner to directly request information from WHD, without first channeling the request through EEOC career staff. This is significant because it enables EEOC Commissioners from different political parties than the Chair to obtain information directly from WHD. 16 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, https://www.eeoc.gov/memorandum-understanding-between-us-department-labor-wageand-hour-division-and-us-equal-employment. 17 See Rachel See, Christopher DeGroff, and Andrew Scroggins, EEOC and DOL Join Forces – What the Alliance Means for Employers, Workplace Class Action Blog (Sept. 18, 2023), https://www.workplaceclassaction.com/2023/09/eeoc-and-dol-join-forces-what-the-alliance-means-for-employers/.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4