Introduction
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or the Commission) published its “FY 2027 Performance Plan and FY 2025 Performance Report” this year, which provides a roadmap of the Commission’s litigation agenda for the Trump administration’s second term, including the identification of four enforcement priorities: (1) DEI-related discrimination, (2) anti-American bias, (3) women’s sex-based rights, and (4) religious liberty and accommodation. These enforcement priorities were recently confirmed in the “National Enforcement Plan (FY2025 – FY2029)” published by the EEOC in June 2026.
Despite EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas’s public campaign against many DEI practices, most of the lawsuits filed by the agency so far this year have focused on different areas. In the first half of 2026, the Commission filed 36 lawsuits alleging workplace discrimination against a wide range of national and international companies. It has also filed six enforcement subpoenas (a legal mechanism that can force employers to release sensitive documents and information) against companies it accuses of refusing to comply with Commission-led investigations.
These 42 enforcement actions, in conjunction with the EEOC’s “Performance Plan and Report” and “National Enforcement Plan,” provide significant insights into the employment-related pitfalls that may lead to litigation and what steps employers can take to protect themselves.
EEOC enforcement trends for 2026
From January 2026 through June 2026, the EEOC investigated or prosecuted alleged workplace discrimination of the following federally protected traits or characteristics:
- Disability: Fourteen lawsuits and three enforcement subpoenas have been filed against employers for alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate workplace limitations, and retaliation for requesting accommodations.
- Religious: Eight lawsuits have been filed against employers for alleged religious discrimination against Christian and Jewish employees, including one lawsuit based on an employer’s vaccine policy.
- Sex: Seven lawsuits have been filed against employers—two for alleged sex discrimination against male employees, including one DEI-related lawsuit.
- Race: Four lawsuits and two enforcement subpoenas have been filed against employers for alleged race discrimination. One lawsuit and one enforcement subpoena, both filed against major U.S. businesses, accuse them of alleged “reverse racism” against white employees related to their respective DEI programs or initiatives.
- Pregnancy: Four lawsuits and one enforcement subpoena have been filed against employers for pregnancy discrimination, including failure to accommodate the limitations of pregnant workers.
- National origin: Three lawsuits have been filed against employers for discriminatory employment practices against American workers, including allegations of harassment and retaliation against American employees by non-American employees.
- Genetic information: One lawsuit has been filed against an employer for collecting the medical history of applicants’ family members during the preemployment hiring process.
- Age: One enforcement subpoena has been filed against an employer under investigation for its hiring practices relating to preemployment assessments.
How do the 2026 enforcement trends compare to the EEOC’s stated priorities?
Some of the EEOC’s stated priorities have yet to substantially materialize in the form of agency action. For example, despite the EEOC’s stated enforcement priority against anti-American bias, the Commission has only filed three lawsuits in the first half of 2026 relating to national origin discrimination. Employers should note, however, that the U.S. Department of Justice has significantly ramped up its investigative and enforcement efforts to combat claims that employers have bypassed hiring Americans in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Additionally, despite disability’s exclusion from the enforcement priorities named in the EEOC’s “Performance Plan and Report” and “National Enforcement Plan,” disability discrimination lawsuits make up the largest share of the Commission’s actions in 2026.
Otherwise, the enforcement actions filed by the Commission to date generally mirror the priorities set out in the “Performance Plan and Report” and “National Enforcement Plan.”
For example, the Commission has shown its prioritization of religious liberty and accommodation by filing seven lawsuits against employers for alleged religious discrimination and failure to accommodate. On March 24, 2026, the Commission sued a major discount variety store for allegedly demoting a Jewish store manager who requested religious accommodation for his Sabbath observance. The Commission has also sued an Illinois-based hospital for the alleged failure to accommodate an employee’s requested religious exemption from the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The Commission is likely leveraging the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which changed how employers can evaluate religious accommodation requests, to pursue more religious discrimination claims, particularly against vaccine mandates. Pre-Groff, employers could reject a request if it presented more than a de minimus impact on the business. Now, employers must grant such requests, absent undue hardship on, or a direct threat to, the business. For healthcare groups, Groff increases the likelihood that objections to vaccine mandates must be accommodated if the employee is not in close contact with potentially vulnerable patients.
The Commission has also targeted several large employers for what it characterizes as “DEI-related discrimination” relating to sex and race. In a recent lawsuit filed on May 5, 2026, the Commission accused an employer of sex and race discrimination against a white male employee tied to its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, which allegedly resulted in the employee being passed up for promotion.
For its women’s sex-based rights enforcement priority, the Commission has pursued several claims of alleged pregnancy discrimination. It has investigated and prosecuted five employers for their alleged failures to accommodate pregnant workers, with allegations ranging from a denied request for a water bottle to requests for pregnancy or childbirth-related leave. In June 2026, the Commission also filed several “traditional” sex-based discrimination lawsuits that allege sexual harassment of female employees, unequal pay violations, and unfair hiring practices in technical fields.
Practical guidance for employers navigating enforcement trends
- Disability accommodation and ADA compliance: In the first half of 2026, disability discrimination claims represent the largest number of cases filed by the EEOC, with a focus on employers’ alleged failure to reasonably accommodate employees’ disabilities. The Commission is particularly scrutinizing systems that it believes operate to deny reasonable accommodations outright, such as blanket rules that apply to all employees, “full duty” requirements, automatic leave referrals, qualification standards, attendance policies, and benefits administration handled by third parties.
Employers should be vigilant because this area remains complicated from a compliance standpoint. Employers should implement an individualized interactive process for every employee that requests workplace accommodation before denying, changing, or revoking accommodations, especially where an accommodation is already in place and has been ostensibly functioning without issue. Employers should also maintain well-documented records of each interactive process it engages in with an employee.
- Religious accommodation: The EEOC is closely scrutinizing “choose between faith and job” scenarios where employers deny religious accommodations through means such as scheduling changes, reversals of existing accommodations, and workplace mandates.
Like disability accommodation requests, employers should implement and document the interactive process for every employee that requests a religious accommodation or before changing or revoking an existing accommodation. Employers should also analyze all requests through the “undue hardship” analysis, rather than assuming weekend shifts, staffing preferences, or blanket mandates automatically defeat a request.
- DEI-related programs and initiatives: Any workplace initiatives, programs, or policies that tie participation or, most importantly, employment decisions, to protected characteristics (such as race or sex) may be subject to increased scrutiny. However, employers have prevailed in several recent court decisions that have ruled diversity trainings and discussions in the workplace do not violate federal law. Additionally, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently ruled that an employer’s diversity policy, or an employee’s replacement by a person from a different racial group, did not ultimately prove racial discrimination. While employers do not need to completely eliminate DEI initiatives from the workplace, they should be careful that such programming does not establish preferences, quotas, or allocations based on protected class status and should continue to monitor this complex legal landscape.
Employers should also review their hiring, promotion, compensation, mentoring, and training policies to ensure all employment decisions are mission-driven and based on an individual’s qualifications, rather than protected characteristics. Additionally, employers should ensure that all employees are allowed to participate in employee programs and events, regardless of their protected characteristics. Finally, employers should consult with employment counsel regarding the specific language used in stated diversity commitments or DEI-related goals and policies.
- Sex-based rights and pregnancy accommodation: The EEOC is treating pregnancy-related limitations, childbirth, and lactation as issues requiring practical, individualized accommodations, not as exceptions to ordinary attendance, leave, or workplace policies. For pregnant workers, employers should be cautious about rigid leave-of-absence rules, automatic resignation policies, denial of simple accommodations like seating or water access, and overbroad medical-record demands.
Employers should implement and document an individualized interactive process for all pregnancy-related accommodation requests, much like they would for disability or religious accommodations. Employers should also ensure all managers are trained on the obligation to accommodate known pregnancy-related limitations. Finally, employers should audit their attendance and overtime policies to ensure they are compliant with the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and do not inadvertently penalize pregnant workers.
- Anti-American bias: In 2026 so far, the EEOC has only filed a few lawsuits addressing its stated enforcement priority of anti-American bias. The Commission has sued two employers that it accuses of discriminatory hiring and promotion practices that preference non-American workers. The Commission has also sued one employer for allegedly allowing non-American employees to harass and retaliate against American employees. Despite the small number of enforcement actions, employers should still be on the lookout for potential violations that may lead to investigation and potential litigation.
Particularly for businesses with multinational workforces or visa-sponsored employees, employers should maintain well-documented and transparent hiring, promotion, and compensation policies that do not discriminate against American workers. Employers should also audit their pay structures, job assignments, and employee benefits to ensure all employment decisions are objective and nondiscriminatory.
Moving forward
The EEOC’s stated enforcement trends and priorities show the Commission is focused on DEI programs, soliciting and prioritizing claims by white men, and addressing religious and pregnancy discrimination. However, disability remains an area where the agency has filed a significant number of lawsuits. Employers should anticipate heightened scrutiny of programs and policies that emphasize historically disadvantaged groups in the workplace, or that are based on protected characteristics. The trends also suggest employers should be proactive in reviewing their accommodation processes to ensure they are fully compliant with the law. Auditing current policies, training managers, and careful review of any DEI-related language will put employers in the best position to avoid costly investigations and enforcement actions.
For more information or counseling on EEOC enforcement trends, investigations and prosecutions, or proactive compliance, please contact experienced counsel for legal advice related to your specific situation.
