©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 20 withdrew its representation, two of the employees who reported the harassment were represented by the ACLU Fund of Michigan. The case was dismissed in August 2025 after a stipulation of dismissal was filed by the parties.45 10. Changes within the Federal Sector On May 15, 2025, then Acting Chair Andrea Lucas announced key changes via two memoranda. The first, titled “Ending Unauthorized Monetary Sanctions Against Federal Agencies,” reversed a two-decade-long practice by announcing that the EEOC will no longer impose monetary sanctions (e.g., attorney’s fees or costs) on federal agencies for noncompliance with EEOC administrative orders.46 This is in line with the advice of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which states that monetary sanctions against federal agencies violate principles of sovereign immunity since such sanctions require an explicit statutory waiver. The memorandum referenced Loper Bright to highlight two points. First, it is the courts, not the agencies, which define legal boundaries. And second, the OLC’s opinion is consistent with the federal courts’ established jurisprudence on sovereign immunity. In lieu of monetary penalties, the EEOC will use non-monetary remedies such as: resolving issues in favor of the opposing party, drawing adverse evidentiary inferences, excluding evidence, and other tailored procedural actions. The memo also implies that this new stance could serve as a possible cost-cutting measure for the federal government, saying that using enforcement tools other than monetary sanctions “will further the EEOC’s mission of eliminating unlawful discrimination while responsibly stewarding the funds entrusted to the federal government by Congress.” The second memo, titled “Restoring and Protecting the Presumption of Innocence in the EEO Complaint Process,” endorsed the Department of Defense’s decision to stop holding promotions in abeyance solely because an employee is the subject of a pending EEO complaint.47 In this memo, Lucas emphasized that the neutrality of the EEO process must exist for both the complainant and the accused, and that there can be no presumption of guilt against those accused of discrimination without a substantive finding of misconduct based on credible evidence. 45 Lucas v. Brik Enterprises Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-12817 (E.D. Mich.). 46 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Memorandum from EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas on Ending Unauthorized Monetary Sanctions Against Federal Agencies, https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/EEOC_Memo_-_Ending_Unauthorized_Monetary_Sanctions_Against_ Federal_Agencies.pdf. 47 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Memorandum from EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas on Restoring and Protecting the Presumption of Innocence in the EEO Complaint Process, https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/EEOC_Memo_-_Restoring_and_Protecting_the_ Presumption_of_Innocence_in_the_EEO_Complaint_Process.pdf.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4