Category: EEOC Litigation

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Daniel D. Spencer

Duane Morris Takeaways: We were honored to have so many loyal blog readers join us for our annual Mid-Year Review of EEOC Litigation And Strategy For Fiscal Year 2026 yesterday. The full video presentation, hosted by Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley, and Daniel Spencer, is below:

The EEOC’s fiscal year (“FY 2026”) spans from October 1, 2025, to September 30, 2026. Through the midway point, EEOC has filed 31 enforcement lawsuits, an uptick when compared to the 22 lawsuits filed in the first half of FY 2025, and the 14 lawsuits filed in the first half of FY 2024.. Traditionally, the second half of the EEOC’s fiscal year – and particularly in the final months of August and September – are when the majority of filings occur. However, an early analysis of the types of lawsuits filed, and the locations where they are filed, is informative for employers in terms of what to expect during the fiscal year-end lawsuit filing rush in September.

Cases Filed By EEOC District Offices

In addition to tracking the total number of filings, we closely monitor which of the EEOC’s 15 district offices are most active in terms of filing new cases over the course of the fiscal year. Some districts tend to be more aggressive than others, and some focus on different case filing priorities. The following chart shows the number of lawsuit filings by EEOC district office.

The most notable trend thus far is the 7 lawsuits filed by the Chicago District Office, followed by the 5 filings by the Philadelphia District Office, 3 filings by Indianapolis, 2 filings each for Atlanta, Birmingham, Houston, New York, Phoenix, and San Francisco, and one filing each for Charlotte, Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami, and St. Louis offices. Dallas has yet to see a lawsuit filing for FY 2026. By comparison, similarly in FY 2025 Chicago and Philadelphia led the pack in lawsuit filings, followed by Indianapolis, Phoenix, Houston, Atlanta, and Birmingham.

Analysis Of The Types Of Lawsuits Filed In First Half Of FY 2026

We also analyzed the types of lawsuits the EEOC filed throughout the first six months, in terms of the statutes and theories of discrimination alleged, in order to determine how the EEOC is shifting its strategic priorities. The chart below shows the EEOC filings by allegation type.

Title VII cases once again made up the majority of cases filed.  They constituted 50% of all filings in FY 2026 (same as FY 2025, down from 58% of all filings in FY 2024, and significantly down from 68% of all filings in FY 2023). Overall, ADA cases made up the next most significant percentage of the EEOC’s FY 2026 filings for a total of 40%.  This is up from 31% in FY 2025, yet similar to the 42% of filings in FY 2024. So far there has only been one filing under the ADEA in FY 2026, down from the uptick in ADEA filings in FY 2025. The EEOC filed 9 ADEA cases in FY 2025, compared to 6 age discrimination cases in FY 2024, 12 age discrimination cases in FY 2023, and 7 age discrimination cases in FY 2022.   In the first six months of FY 2026, the EEOC filed 4 cases under the Pregnant Worker’s Fairness Act, on track compared to 6 filings in FY 2025 and 3 filings in FY 2024.  So far, no cases filed under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  Notably absent from FY 2026’s filings are cases brought under the Equal Pay Act and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act – two areas that the EEOC repeatedly has cited among its enforcement priorities prior to the second Trump Administration. 

The graph set out below shows the number of lawsuits filed according to the statute under which they were filed (Title VII, Americans With Disabilities Act, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Equal Pay Act, and Age Discrimination in Employment Act).

The industries impacted by EEOC-initiated litigation have also remained consistent in FY 2026. The chart below details that hospitality, healthcare, and retail employers have maintained their lead as corporate defendants in the last 18 months of EEOC-initiated litigation.  In the first six months of FY 2026, two industries remained in the EEOC’s targets: Hospitality and Retail. On a percentage basis, Hospitality (Restaurants / Hotels / Entertainment) comprised 25.9% of filings, and Retail had 22.2% of filings. A key difference in FY 2025 compared to FY 2024 is Retail (22.2% of FY 2026 filings) overtaking Healthcare (18.5% of FY 2026 filings) and Manufacturing (7.4% of FY 2026 filings) as the next most targeted industry.  Transportation & Logistics entered double digit enforcement activity, at 18.5% of the filings. The remaining industry with at least 2 filings is Construction, representing 7.4% of the filings.

Notable 2026 Lawsuit Filings

Disability Discrimination

In EEOC v. Schneider National, Inc., Case No. 26-CV-905 (D. Md. Mar. 4, 2026), the EEOC filed an action alleging that the defendant, Schneider National, Inc., a nationwide transportation and logistics company, violated the ADA when it refused to reasonably accommodate an applicant with PTSD by denying her request to bring her service dog to work, and withdrawing its job offer because of her disability. The EEOC asserted that the defendant extended a conditional offer of employment to the job candidate. However, next day, after learning that she had post-traumatic stress disorder and needed her service dog, the company withdrew her job offer pending further review. In response to Schneider’s request for additional information, the woman disclosed that her dog was certified as a service animal, trained to alleviate and prevent symptoms of PTSD, and had successfully accompanied her in the truck while she trained and obtained her Class A commercial driver’s license. The EEOC asserted that the defendant refused to allow her to drive with her service dog as an accommodation.

Religious Discrimination

In EEOC v. Blue Eagle Contracting, Inc., Case No. 26-CV-226 (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2026), the EEOC filed an action against the defendant, a bulk mail delivery contractor for the U.S. Postal Service, alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII when it allegedly failed to return a Christian employee truck driver to a weekday shift so he could attend Sunday morning church services. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the defendant hired the driver, who informed supervisors of his religious obligations on Sundays stemming from his Christian faith. He was assigned a weekday delivery route, which he worked for several months until he volunteered on an emergency basis to fill a Sunday morning shift after a coworker unexpectedly resigned. The driver reminded his supervisors multiple times that he needed to attend church services on Sunday mornings and said he was only willing to work Sunday mornings until a replacement driver for the weekend shift was hired. The EEOC asserted that although the defendant hired a replacement, it continued to schedule the driver for Sunday shifts, while the replacement drove the weekday shift. The driver ultimately resigned from his position, and the EEOC alleged that the defendant’s failure to accommodate the drivers sincerely held religious beliefs ultimately compelled him to leave his job.

Race Discrimination

In EEOC v. Ourisman Cars Management Company, LLC, et al.), Case No. 26-CV-1233 (D. Md. Mar. 27, 2026), the EEOC brought an action alleging race discrimination after a finance manager at one of the defendants’ car dealerships repeatedly used racially offensive language toward Black salesmen in 2023. Employees reported the behavior to management multiple times, but the EEOC alleged the company did not take sufficient corrective action. The conduct continued, and two employees ultimately left their jobs. The EEOC asserted that the company’s conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

In EEOC v. Nike, Case No. 26-MC-128 (E.D. Mo. Feb 4, 2026), the EEOC filed a complaint to enforce a subpoena related to claims alleging race discrimination against white workers through DEI programs. The agency seeks to compel Nike’s compliance with a May 2024 subpoena then-commissioner Andrea Lucas issued pointing to workforce representation quotas.

Release Of Enforcement Statistics

On April 6, 2026, the EEOC published its FY 2027 Agency Performance Plan (“APP”) and FY 2025 Agency Performance Report (“APR”). The EEOC reported $660 million recovered through administrative enforcement and litigation for 17,680 alleged victims of discrimination. It also reported $528 million recovered through pre-litigation enforcement process (the highest amount in the agency’s 60-year history), $104.6 million for federal employees and applicants, $55 million recovered as a result of systemic investigations, $27 million through resolution of 120 merits lawsuits, $10.8 million obtained through the resolution of 13 systemic lawsuits, and six new systemic lawsuit filings.

Takeaways For Employers

We anticipate that the EEOC will continue to aggressively pursue its strategic priority areas in FY 2026. There is no reason to believe that the annual “September surge” is not coming, in what could be another precedent-setting year. We will continue to monitor EEOC litigation activity on a daily basis, and look forward to providing our blog readers with up-to-date analysis on the latest developments.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Andrew P. Quay

Duane Morris Takeaways: On March 9, 2026, in EEOC v. TCI of Alabama, LLC, Case No. 25-CV-89, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47895 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2026), Judge Corey L. Maze of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed a third-party complaint seeking to enforce indemnity provisions between Defendant-TCI and third-party staffing firms with the aim of indemnifying TCI from liability under Title VII.  The Court held that parties cannot contract away their responsibilities under Title VII in light of its comprehensive remedial scheme. 

The Court’s decision illustrates that corporate defendants cannot shift potential Title VII liability through contracted indemnity clauses entered into by staffing firms that refer employees.

Case Background

TCI of Alabama, LLC (“TCI”) disposes and recycles PCB contaminated items at various plants and employs laborers to do so.  Id. at *3.  To hire laborers, since 2020, TCI has “relied exclusively on third-party temporary staffing agencies” who refer qualified applicants.  Id.

The EEOC investigated TCI after the Commission learned that TCI allegedly refused to recruit and hire qualified women for laborer positions.  Id.  Following its investigation, the EEOC issued TCI a letter of determination, found reasonable cause to believe that TCI violated Title VII, and invited TCI to conciliate.  Id.  The Parties did not reach a conciliation agreement, and the EEOC filed the instant lawsuit.  Id. 

The EEOC’s lawsuit brought one claim for sex discrimination under Title VII.  Id. at *3-4.  According to the EEOC, TCI “intentionally excluded from employment a class of qualified females seeking employment as laborers in favor of hiring equally or less qualified male applicants.”  Id. at *4.  The EEOC maintained that TCI refused to hire women for numerous reasons including that TCI instructed third party staffing agencies, Orin Staffing, LLC, Personnel Staffing, Inc., and WorkSmart Staffing, Inc. (the “Staffing Firms”) not to refer women for its laborer positions because “among other reasons, women would ‘distract’ male workers and increase the risk of sexual harassment in the workplace.”  Id. 

TCI answered the complaint and then filed its own third-party complaint for breach of contract against the Staffing Firms.  Id.  TCI’s third-party complaint alleged the Staffing Firms “agreed via contracts” to lawfully refer qualified laborers to TCI.  Id.  The contracts also contained indemnification provisions, which required the Staffing Firms, as joint employers of referred employees, to indemnify TCI “for all claims caused by the [Staffing Firms’] breach of contract, including a breach caused by failing to follow the law when referring applicants.”  Id. at *4-5.

Accordingly, TCI contended that even if the EEOC’s allegations were true, the Staffing Firms’ compliance with TCI’s alleged unlawful instruction was itself “unlawful and violated Title VII.”  Id. at *5.  Therefore, the Staffing Firms exposed TCI to legal claims which TCI was indemnified for under their agreed contracts.  Id.

The EEOC and the Staffing Firms moved to dismiss TCI’s third-party complaint.  Id.  Their arguments for dismissal varied. Id.  The Court focused on one argument raised by the EEOC, whether Title VII preempts TCI’s breach of contract claim and therefore requires dismissal of TCI’s third-party complaint.  Id. at *6-7.

The Court’s Opinion

Judge Maze agreed with the EEOC that Title VII preempts TCI’s breach of contract claim and dismissed the third-party complaint with prejudice, explaining that any amendment would be futile.  Id. at *9.

Acknowledging Title VII’s “comprehensive remedial scheme,” the Court adopted the holding in EEOC v. Blockbuster, Case No. 07-CV-2612, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2889 (D. Md. Jan. 14, 2010), which held that parties accused of violating Title VII may not bring claims for indemnification against third parties “to skirt their own liability.”  TCI of Alabama, LLC,2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS47895, at *7.  In Blockbuster, the EEOC brought a Title VII action against the home video rental chain for failing to prevent and correct known sexual harassment at one of its warehouse facilities.  Blockbuster, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2889, at *1.  Blockbuster, like TCI here, filed a third-party complaint against a staffing firm that agreed to indemnify Blockbuster against any losses arising from any employment claim brought by its employees.  Id. The Court in Blockbuster granted judgment on the pleadings against Blockbuster and held that “[t]he primary goal of Title VII to eradicate discriminatory conduct would be thwarted if Blockbuster were permitted to contract around its obligations and shift its entire responsibility for complying with Title VII” to a third party.  Id.

The Court here agreed that the policy rationale in Blockbuster applied in greater force to TCI’s third-party indemnification claims given those claims rested on the EEOC’s allegation that TCI instructed staffing firms not to refer qualified women.  TCI of Alabama, LLC,2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS47895, at *8. “Federal public policy would be undermined,” the Court explained, “if TCI had the ability to tell others to help TCI violate federal law and then pay TCI if TCI got caught.”  Id.  Therefore, a contractual indemnity provision could not shield TCI from liability under Title VII.

Even though the EEOC’s lawsuit continues against TCI, the Staffing Firms involved in hiring are not off the hook.  In a footnote, the Opinion clarifies that if the Staffing Firms violated Title VII by complying with TCI’s unlawful request to not refer qualified women for laborer jobs, they too can face liability in another case.  Id. at *9, n. 2. 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed TCI’s third-party complaint with prejudice.

Implications For Businesses

EEOC v. TCI of Alabama, LLC demonstrates that corporate defendants cannot turn a blind eye to potential Title VII harms and attempt to contract away Title VII liability.  While indemnity clauses may appear all-encompassing, courts continue to decline coverage where Title VII violations are alleged. 

This Court agreed that public policy concerns control and remain critical in analyzing the scope of an indemnity provision in alleged gender-bias hiring under Title VII.  After TCI of Alabama, LLC, Companies contracting with outside staffing firms cannot rely on “shifting the blame” through indemnity provisions in contracts when faced with Title VII claims brought by the EEOC. 

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Daniel D. Spencer

Duane Morris Takeaway: Please join us for our webinar, Mid-Year Review of EEOC Litigation and Strategy, which will take place on Tuesday, April 7, 2026 at 11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Central. Click here to register to attend!

Join Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley and Daniel Spencer for a live panel discussion analyzing the latest impact of the dramatic changes at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its new strategic priorities and the array of EEOC lawsuits filed in the first six months of fiscal year 2026. Moving through FY 2026 with significant changes implemented by the Trump administration, employers’ compliance with federal workplace laws and agency guidance remains a business imperative. Our virtual program will empower corporate counsel, human resource professionals and business leaders with key insights into the EEOC’s latest enforcement initiatives and provide strategies designed to minimize the risk of drawing the agency’s scrutiny.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaways: Given the importance of compliance with workplace anti-discrimination laws for our clients, we are pleased to present the fourth annual edition of the Duane Morris EEOC And Government Enforcement Litigation Review – 2026. The EEOC And Government Enforcement Litigation Review – 2026 analyzes the EEOC’s and U.S. Department of Labor enforcement lawsuit filings in 2025 and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting this litigation for 2026.

Click here to bookmark or download a copy of the EEOC And Government Enforcement Litigation Review – 2026 e-book.

The Review explains the impact of the EEOC’s six enforcement priorities as outlined in its Strategic Enforcement Plan on employers’ business planning and how the direction of the Commission’s Plan should influence key employer decisions. The Review also contains a compilation of significant rulings decided in 2025 that impacted government-initiated litigation and a list of the most significant settlements in 2025.

We hope readers will enjoy this new publication. We will continue to update blog readers on any important EEOC developments and look forward to sharing further thoughts and analysis in 2026!

Stay tuned for key EEOC and government-enforcement related analysis on the Class Action Weekly Wire Podcast.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca Bjork, and Anna Sheridan

Key Takeaways:  In EEOC v. Security Assurance Management Inc., No. 25-CV-00181, 2025 WL 2911781 (D.D.C. Oct. 14, 2025),  Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia refused to pare back the EEOC’s pregnancy and lactation claims against Security Assurance Management, Inc. (“SAM”), leaving all five causes of action under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and both Title VII counts intact. Applying Rule 12(c), the Court held – in an order denying Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss – the “heavy burden” on a defendant seeking judgment on the pleadings and determined that the EEOC’s theories — though factually overlapping — targeted distinct harms and therefore were not “duplicative.” The Court’s refusal to dismiss any of the EEOC’s PWFA counts sends a clear signal that defendants will face an uphill battle when trying to narrow pregnancy-related claims at the pleadings stage, particularly after filing an answer.

Case Background

The EEOC filed suit under Title VII and the PWFA on behalf of Simone Cooper, a special police officer who was reassigned after the client at her post did not want her working at the site while pregnant. (Compl. ¶ 17).  As the court summarized, the EEOC “brings this employment discrimination action against Security Assurance Management, Inc. pursuant to Title VII … and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act,” alleging that SAM “disciplined and removed an employee, Simone Cooper (‘Ms. Cooper’), from her assignment due to her pregnancy-related condition and her need for accommodations.” Id. at *3.

After her maternity leave, Cooper was placed at a Hampton Inn post where she “was breastfeeding and had the pregnancy-related medical condition of lactation.” Id. The court noted that she “could nonetheless perform the essential functions of her job as an Unarmed Special Police Officer,” but SAM “repeatedly denied or ignored Ms. Cooper’s accommodation requests.” Id. The consequences were significant, as “Ms. Cooper leaked through her clothing during the workday on at least two occasions,” and because SAM provided no adequate space, “Ms. Cooper had to pump in her car in the Hampton Inn parking lot.” Id.

Despite outreach by Cooper, her union representative, and her attorney, the company allegedly did not engage in any interactive process. SAM eventually issued a written warning for “excessive absenteeism” that included days she was not scheduled and the day she left after leaking through her uniform. Id. at *4. She was later removed from the schedule entirely.

The complaint asserts seven claims, including two under Title VII and five under the PWFA for failure to accommodate, adverse action based on accommodation requests, denial of employment opportunities, retaliation, and interference. After it filed its Answer, SAM filed a partial motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of three of the counts as purportedly duplicative.

The Court’s Ruling

Because SAM filed an Answer before seeking dismissal, the court treated the request as a Rule 12(c) motion. As Judge Contreras explained, such a motion “will be granted only if Defendant can demonstrate that no material fact is in dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” and at this early stage the movant “shoulders a heavy burden of justification.” Id. at *6.

The Court began with its definition, citing from Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran’s “duplicative claim test.” It explained that “duplicative claims are those that stem from identical allegations, that are decided under identical legal standards, and for which identical relief is available.” Id. at *7 (quoting Wultz, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1, 81 (D.D.C. 2010)).  SAM argued that several PWFA claims were repetitive, but after analyzing each count, the Court held otherwise.

Most notably, SAM asserted that the “Adverse Actions” claim duplicated the PWFA retaliation claim because both concerned similar employment decisions. Judge Contreras disagreed, emphasizing that the counts “assert different motivations for Defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct.” Id. at *8. The adverse-action theory centers on actions taken “on account of” Cooper’s accommodation requests, while retaliation requires adverse treatment because she opposed unlawful practices. “Because Count Two (Adverse Actions) and Count Four (Retaliation) arise from different allegations,” the court concluded, “the claims are not duplicative.” Id. at *9.

The Court applied the same reasoning to SAM’s attempt to collapse the PWFA adverse-action, denial-of-opportunities, and interference counts into the single failure-to-accommodate claim. Those theories, Judge Contreras explained, each addressed different harms and are evaluated under distinct legal standards. As a result, “none are duplicative,” and the Court denied the motion in full. Id. at* 7.

Implications For Employers

This opinion is a reminder that overlapping facts do not automatically render multiple statutory claims redundant — especially under the PWFA, where Congress created several discrete causes of action aimed at different workplace harms. Courts are giving each theory breathing room rather than collapsing them into a single “pregnancy discrimination” count.

Procedurally, the decision warns defendants against using post-Answer motions to trim suits. Under Rule 12(c), the movant faces a “heavy burden,” and close questions typically favor allowing the case to proceed to discovery.

Substantively, the facts the Court credited (removing a visibly pregnant worker at a client’s request, ignoring repeated lactation-related accommodation needs, forcing pumping in a car, and disciplining a worker for consequences of inadequate accommodations) are the kinds of scenarios likely to support claims not just under the PWFA, but also under Title VII.

The decision reinforces that the PWFA is a powerful, stand-alone statute with multiple actionable theories. Courts will not readily prune these claims at the pleading stage, and the EEOC is deploying them aggressively. Employers should treat pregnancy-related accommodation requests with the same rigor as disability accommodations – engage promptly, document communications, provide appropriate space and break time, and avoid client-driven decisions that move or remove pregnant workers.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Adam D. Brown, and Elizabeth G. Underwood

Duane Morris Takeaways: On November 25, 2025, in Cross v. EEOC, No. 1:25-CV-3702, 2025 WL 3280764 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2025), Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed an Amazon delivery driver’s lawsuit against the EEOC.  The lawsuit alleged that the EEOC illegally halted investigations of disparate impact claims following an executive order from President Trump.  The district court’s ruling is at least a short-term win for employers, demonstrating that a plaintiff who is not the subject of an EEOC action cannot easily resort to the federal courts to challenge the internal investigation and enforcement policies that caused the EEOC not to pursue theories of employer liability. The “win” is likely the first in a series of challenges to the EEOC’s stance on disparate impact litigation.

Case Background

The plaintiff in this case, Leah Cross, who worked as Amazon delivery driver for several months in 2022, was fired after she failed to satisfy Amazon’s delivery quota requirements.  In May 2023, Cross filed a sex-based charge of discrimination against Amazon with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, asserting violations of Title VII and Colorado state law.

Cross contended that Amazon’s delivery quotas and resulting bathroom limitations had a disparate impact on female Amazon employees.  Specifically, she alleged, Amazon enforced excessively high delivery quotas, which forced delivery drivers to forgo bathroom breaks.  According to Cross, this disparately impacted female delivery drivers because of their differing personal needs relative to male drivers.

In January 2024, the EEOC’s Denver office began investigating the charge.  But in April 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14281 titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which instructed federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of antidiscrimination laws based on disparate impact theories of liability.  That Executive Order also specifically directed the EEOC to examine all pending investigations of such claims and take appropriate action consistent with the new enforcement priorities.

In September 2025, the EEOC issued a memorandum requiring staff to close all investigations of disparate impact claims, which included Cross’s claims.  Thereafter, Cross filed a lawsuit against the EEOC, alleging that she “ha[d] been denied the benefit of a full investigation” by the Commission.  Cross v. EEOC, No. 1:25-CV-3702, 2025 WL 3280764, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2025).

Cross claimed the EEOC’s memorandum violated § 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that: (1) the Commission acted contrary to Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by “selectively exclud[ing] categories of discrimination from the charge-investigation process;” (2) the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in abruptly changing its policy; (3) the Commission’s memorandum constituted a substantive rule that was “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations”; and (4) the Commission should have promulgated its memorandum through proper notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.  Id.  Therefore, Cross sought a preliminary injunction requesting, among others, for her investigation to be reopened.

The Court’s Opinion

The Court held Cross failed to establish that she had standing to bring her claims and thus dismissed Cross’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without addressing them on the merits.  To remedy Cross’s alleged injuries, the Court suggested that Cross could pursue a Title VII action directly against Amazon.

The Court determined that Cross did not show any judicially cognizable injury from the EEOC’s closure of her investigation.  Moreover, the Court opined that “even if that were the kind of injury capable of judicial resolution, Cross has not shown that a favorable ruling by this Court would redress that injury.”  Id. at *1.

The Court explained that “federal courts are ‘not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive branch’ should ‘bring more’ investigations and enforcement actions.”  Id. at *4 (quoting United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 680 (2023)). Under applicable case law recognizing this principle, the Court held, because Cross was not the subject of an EEOC enforcement action, she lacked standing to challenge the agency’s investigation and enforcement decisions. 

Implications For Companies

The Court’s ruling is a win for companies, confirming that federal courts currently are not willing to interfere with the EEOC’s internal investigation and enforcement policies regarding disparate impact claims.  Even more broadly, the Court’s order reinforces the substantial deference federal courts grant the EEOC in its internal decision-making processes, which could cut in different directions depending on the enforcement priorities and policies of a particular executive branch or EEOC leadership regime.

Crucially, however, employers are not in the clear.  Companies still should be proactive and continue to audit regularly their hiring and employment practices for potential disparate impact, which remains unlawful under both federal and state laws notwithstanding any vacillation in EEOC policy.  While the EEOC may choose to deprioritize pursuing disparate impact claims, a charging party who receives a Notice of Right to Sue letter still can file a private lawsuit in reliance on longstanding precedent regarding disparate impact.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik, and Gregory Tsonis

Duane Morris Takeaway: Thank you to all the loyal blog readers and followers who joined us for our Year-End EEOC Strategy And Litigation Review webinar! In this 30-minute program, Duane Morris partners Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik and Gregory Tsonis analyzed the latest impact of the dramatic changes at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its new strategic priorities and the EEOC lawsuits filed throughout fiscal year 2025, and discussed how heading into FY 2026 with significant changes implemented by the Trump administration, employers’ compliance with federal workplace laws and agency guidance remains a corporate imperative.

If you were unable to attend the webinar, it is now available on our podcast channel. Click to watch below and stay tuned for important EEOC trends and developments throughout the year.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, Jennifer A. Riley, Gregory Tsonis, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways:  In FY 2025 (October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025), the EEOC’s litigation enforcement activity stalled significantly compared to previous years.  By the numbers, FY 2025 lawsuit filings ended on the lower end of the spectrum with 94 lawsuits filed compared to the height of filings in FY 2018 (217 lawsuits).  The decline in enforcement activity suggests that during President Trump’s second term in office, employers should not expect the EEOC to be as aggressive as past regimes in terms of the volume of government enforcement lawsuits, particularly in terms of systemic litigation.

Though the overall filings totals are lower than previous years, certain geographic regions, types of claims, and key industries remain prime targets of the Commission’s lawsuits.  Our analysis of these patterns is set forth below and is offered to arm employers with the EEOC’s FY 2025 litigation scorecard through an evaluation of district office enforcement activity, filings by statute and discrimination basis, and the most impacted industries. 

In sum, there is still a bevy of EEOC lawsuits being filed against businesses, but in a more localized and targeted fashion.  Employers should continue their legal compliance with all EEOC initiatives.

Lawsuit Filings Based On Month And Year

The EEOC’s fiscal year ends each year on September 30.  The final deluge of filings for EEOC-initiated litigation maintained its year-end boost in 2025.  This year, in September alone, 35 lawsuits were filed, down from September filings in FY 2024 (50 lawsuits filed) and September filings in FY 2023 (67 lawsuits filed) – but still a significant total, nonetheless.  Of the 94 total filings this year, just over one-third of EEOC lawsuits were filed in September, down from FY 2024’s last-minute filing frenzy accounting for half of that year’s filings.  The following chart shows the EEOC’s filing pattern over FY 2025:

We track the EEOC’s filing efforts across the entire fiscal year with its beginning in October through the anticipated filing spree in September.  Unlike other fiscal years, the EEOC’s filing patterns were consistent in the first half of FY 2025, peaking with 14 lawsuits in January.  Filings again slowed down until Summer, where there was a resurgence of another 14 lawsuits in June 2025.  Thereafter, lawsuit filings dipped until the “eleventh hour” in September.

Comparing these filings in FY 2025 to previous years, the EEOC filed significantly less lawsuits than in FY 2024 (111) and FY 2023 (144 lawsuits), signaling a trend in decreased EEOC enforcement activity.  Though EEOC litigation filings continuously decreased compared to pre-COVID era filing metrics, the EEOC’s presence as a litigation powerhouse persists.  The following graph shows the EEOC’s year-over-year fiscal year filings beginning in FY 2017 through FY 2025:

Lawsuit Filings Based On EEOC District Offices

In addition to tracking the total number of filings, we closely monitor which of the EEOC’s 15 district offices are most actively filing new cases throughout the EEOC’s fiscal year.  Some district offices tend to be more aggressive than others.  Some focus on different case filing priorities.  The following chart shows the number of lawsuit filings by each of the EEOC district offices.

In FY 2025, Philadelphia and Chicago led the pack in filing the most lawsuits at 11 each, followed by Indianapolis with 8 filings, then Atlanta, Birmingham, Houston, and Phoenix with 7 filings, and Charlotte, New York, and Miami each with 6 filings.  St. Louis had 5 filings, Los Angeles and San Francisco had 4 filings, and Dallas had 3 filings.  Memphis had the lowest amount with only 2 filings. 

Like FY 2024, Philadelphia proved itself as a leader in EEOC enforcement filings. Chicago remained steady with 11 filings, same as FY 2024.  St. Louis (2 filings in FY 2024) and Phoenix (4 filings in FY 2024) also experienced increases in filings compared to last year.  Other offices comparatively lagged in enforcement activity, Atlanta (11 filings in FY 2024), Indianapolis (9 filings in FY 2024), and Houston (8 filings in FY 2024), showed slight decreases in enforcement activities.  Across the board filings generally evened out for each district office compared to FY 2024, but overall, filings fell.  

Although filing trends were down for all Districts, the total filings demonstrate the EEOC maintained its consistent litigation strength, across all district offices.  Employers with operations in Philadelphia and Chicago should pay extra attention to EEOC charge activity given the aggressiveness of the Commission in those regions.

(Note: Three EEOC press releases from the Washington D.C. Field Office included their lawsuit filings as part of the Philadelphia District Office statistics)

Lawsuit Filings Based On Type Of Discrimination

We also analyze the types of lawsuits the EEOC filed in terms of the statutes and theories of discrimination alleged. This enables us to determine how the EEOC is shifting its strategic priorities.

When considered on a percentage basis, the distribution of cases filed by statute skewed significantly in favor of Title VII cases when comparing FY 2025 to previous fiscal years.  Title VII cases once again made up the majority of cases filed, as they constituted 50% of all filings in FY 2025 (decreased from 58% of all filings in FY 2024, significantly down from 68% of all filings FY 2023 and 69% of filings in FY 2022, and decreased compared to 61% of all filings in FY 2021).

Overall, ADA cases also made up the next most significant percentage of the EEOC’s FY 2025 filings – totaling 31.5%.  This is an overall decrease in previous years where ADA filings amounted to 42% in FY 2025, 34% in FY 2023, and 37% in FY 2021.  Though these filings are marginally higher than FY 2022 where ADA filings on a percentage basis amounted to 29.7% of all filings.

There was also an uptick in ADEA filings, as 9 ADEA cases were filed in FY 2025, whereas 6 age discrimination cases were filed in FY 2024, after 12 age discrimination cases were filed in FY 2023 and 7 age discrimination cases were filed in FY 2022.  Like FY 2024, this year the EEOC pursued Pregnant Worker’s Fairness Act cases with 6 filings compared to FY 2024’s 3 filings.  In addition, FY 2025 had a slight increase in Pregnancy Discrimination Act cases where 5 cases were filed compared to FY 2024’s 4 filed cases.  Notably absent from FY 2025’s filing balance are cases under the Equal Pay Act and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.  The following graph shows the number of lawsuits filed according to the statute under which they were filed.

We also collect data on the allegations for which the EEOC bases its litigation filing. 

The EEOC’s basis for suit remained the same among its core tenets, with Disability, Sex, and Retaliation claims leading the way.  Collectively, these three bases were alleged in 59.4% of FY 2025 EEOC filings.  In FY 2024, those same three core tenets also took the top three spots (collectively alleged in 67.6% of FY 2024 EEOC filings). Notably, in FY 2025, only 3 Race or National Origin based lawsuits were filed by the EEOC, or 2.3% of the total lawsuit filings.  In FY 2024, 8.9% of all filings included Race claims.  The following graph shows a comparison of the filings in FY 2025 to FY 2024 for the allegation basis in filings:

Lawsuits Filings Based On Industry

In monitoring the EEOC’s filings by industry, FY 2025 aligns with prior EEOC-initiated lawsuits in the top two industries compared to FY 2024, demonstrating the Commission’s focus on a few major industries.

In FY 2025, two industries remained in the EEOC’s targets: Hospitality and Healthcare:   On a percentage basis, Hospitality (Restaurants / Hotels / Entertainment) comprised 25% of filings, and Healthcare had 21.3% of filings.  A key difference in FY 2025 compared to FY 2024 is Manufacturing (15% of FY 2025 filings; 12.1% of FY 2024 filings) overtaking Retail (11.3% of FY 2025 filings; 23.1% of FY 2024 filings) as the next most targeted industry.  The staggering drop in enforcement actions against Retailers poses a distinct drop in enforcement actions in this industry.  Only one other industry, Transportation & Logistics, entered double digit enforcement activity (with 10%).The remaining industries in FY 2025 did not enter double-digit percentages though Staffing and Construction each experienced EEOC initiated litigation in FY 2025 (8.8%, and 8.8% of filings respectively per industry).

Unlike FY 2024, FY 2025 did not have any actions which involved Property Management industries.  Overall, the FY 2025 industry spread aligns with FY 2024, where Hospitality and Healthcare are the most heavily targeted industries.  Though Manufacturing and Retail swapped positions in enforcement priority, both still placed in the third and fourth impacted industries.  Like FY 2024, the EEOC’s FY 2025 fiscal year again did not advance any industry-based filings in the Automotive, Security, and/or Technology industries.

Like FY 2024, Hospitality and Healthcare employers should continue to monitor their compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.  These industries are regular hotbeds for charges and ultimately lawsuits.  No matter the industry, every employer should recognize they are vulnerable to EEOC-initiated litigation as detailed by the below graph.

Looking Ahead To Fiscal Year 2026

Moving into FY 2026, the EEOC’s budget justification includes a $19.618 million decrease from FY 2025.  President Trump’s Administration prioritizes a return to the “agency’s true mission.”  The reinvigorated EEOC aims to “return to its founding principles and restore evenhanded enforcement of employment civil rights laws on behalf of all Americans.”  The EEOC’s mission is guided by the President’s pledge to “restore dignity to the American worker” and is bolstered by the President’s series of executive orders.

The FY 2026 EEOC budget justification signals a transition to “attacking all forms of race discrimination, including rooting out unlawful race discrimination arising from DEI programs, policies, and practices; protecting American workers from unlawful national origin discrimination involving preferences for foreign workers; defending women’s sex-based rights at work; and supporting religious liberty by protecting workers from religious bias and harassment and protecting their rights to religious accommodations at work.”  The Commission also intends to continue its efforts in incorporating technological advances, streamlining and improving operational processes, and refining its organizational structure to ensure efficiency and effective EEOC enforcement.

The EEOC also shifted its goals in FY 2025.  The EEOC now prioritizes three strategic goals.  First, the EEOC will combat and prevent employment discrimination through the strategic application of the EEOC’s law enforcement authorities.  In achieving this goal, the EEOC will employ broad remedial measures and exercise its enforcement authority fairly, efficiently, and based on the circumstances of the charge or complaint.  Second, the EEOC will prevent employment discrimination and advance equal employment opportunities through education and outreach.  Namely, the EEOC will increase public awareness of employment discrimination laws, and knowledge of specific rights and responsibilities under these laws, while also using its agencies to advance and resolve EEO issues.  Third, the EEOC will strive for organizational excellence through its people, practices, and technology.  In so doing, the EEOC intends to achieve a culture of accountability, inclusivity, and accessibility balanced against intake, outreach, education, enforcement, and service to the public to protect and advance civil rights in the workplace.

Key Employer Takeaways

In several respects, FY 2025 represented a change in enforcement targets and continued efforts in key discriminatory areas.  While total filings decreased, the new administration foreshadows a targeted approach in upcoming EEOC enforcement.  This is considerably true where the requested budget decrease reflects a narrower window of enforcement priorities but maintains the EEOC’s hallmark tradition of defending public civil liberties. 

Given the President’s second term is just beginning, the EEOC’s FY 2025 data should be taken with a grain of salt.  After all, it was a year of transition for the Commission.  The Commission’s FY 2025 filings suggest discrimination always stays within the purview of the EEOC’s priorities, but what constitutes “actionable” or “litigation-worthy” discrimination is wavering.  We anticipate these figures will grow by next year’s report.  Finally, given the volatility of the EEOC’s priorities, it is more crucial than ever for employers to stay abreast of EEOC developments and comply with anti-discrimination laws.

***This article is published in advance of EEOC’s FY 2025, with the data current as of 5:00 p.m. CST. Duane Morris will post the final numbers and statistics through FY 2025, by 5:00 p.m. CST on October 1, 2025.

***For more on the EEOC’s FY 2025, we invite you to attend Duane Morris’ Year-End EEOC Review Webinar on October 22, 2025.  To register for the webinar access the link here.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Alex Karasik And Gregory Tsonis

Mark your calendars for our bi-annual program analyzing the latest EEOC developments: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Central. Reserve your virtual seat for the program here.

Join Duane Morris partners Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik and Gregory Tsonis for a live panel discussion analyzing the latest impact of the dramatic changes at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its new strategic priorities and the EEOC lawsuits filed throughout fiscal year 2025. In its annual performance report for FY 2024, the agency touted a record $700 million in monetary recoveries for workers through litigation and administrative avenues. Heading into FY 2026 with significant changes implemented by the Trump administration, employers’ compliance with federal workplace laws and agency guidance remains a corporate imperative. Our virtual program will empower corporate counsel, human resource professionals and business leaders with key insights into the EEOC’s latest enforcement initiatives and provide strategies designed to minimize the risk of drawing the agency’s scrutiny.

Presenters

Gerald L. Maatman Jr.

Jennifer A. Riley

Alex W. Karasik

Gregory Tsonis

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Bernadette M. Coyle, and Elizabeth G. Underwood

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 12, 2025, in EEOC v. Support Center for Child Advocates, No. 2:25-CV-00310, (E.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2025), Judge John F. Murray of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the EEOC’s second unopposed motion for approval of a consent decree between the EEOC and Support Center for Child Advocates.  The Court remained unsatisfied with the lack of information with which the Court could assess the appropriateness of the parties’ agreement. 

This ruling demonstrates that approval of an agreed upon consent decree is anything but a guaranteed rubber stamp. Instead, it shows the importance of providing a factual basis and thorough reasoning to justify gaining court approval, even when motions are unopposed.

Case Background

On January 17, 2025, the EEOC, on behalf of charging party Meghan Seitz, filed a lawsuit against Defendant Support Center for Child Advocates regarding allegations of pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  (ECF 1.)  Specifically, the EEOC alleged that the child advocacy organization discriminated against Ms. Seitz, a former employee with a high-risk pregnancy, when the organization denied Ms. Seitz an accommodation to work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic.  (Id. ¶¶ 21–24.)

On August 15, 2025, the EEOC first moved for approval of the proposed consent decree.  (ECF 29.)  The motion includes the consent decree as “Exhibit A,” which sets forth the parties’ agreed-upon plan for Support Center for Child Advocates to provide future accommodations to similar employees, adopt an Equal Employment and non-discrimination policy, implement human resources and management personnel training, inform workers about their rights to accommodations, and pay Seitz $30,000, among other provisions.  (ECF 29-1.)

The Court denied the EEOC’s initial motion for entry of the consent decree on August 18, 2025.  (ECF 30.)  The Court reasoned that the motion requested the consent decree be entered “for the reasons stated therein” but included no reasons stated therein.  (Id. at 1 n.1.) 

The Court opined that it had no way of knowing whether the agreement was appropriate or not.  As a solution, the Court invited the parties to either file a stipulated dismissal after agreeing amongst themselves to the terms of the proposed consent decree or refile the motion with additional information.

Most Recent Filings And Order

On September 8, 2025, the EEOC filed a supplemental motion for entry of the consent decree, which provided an overview of the procedural history of the case.  (ECF 31.)  The EEOC also filed an unopposed memorandum in support of its motion.  (ECF 31-1.)  In the memorandum, the EEOC further outlined the case history, labeled as the statement of the case, and argued that settlement through a consent decree is a regular and appropriate manner of resolution and that the proposed consent decree satisfies the legal standard for judicial review.

On September 12, 2025, the Court denied the EEOC’s second motion for entry of the consent decree, finding the motion did not provide an adequate factual basis from which the Court could assess the appropriateness of the consent order.  (ECF 32.)  To resolve this issue, the Court noted that it would be willing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to build a record if the parties were interested.  (Id. at 1 n.1.)

Implications For Employers

The Court’s denial of the second motion for entry of the proposed consent decree in EEOC v. Support Center for Child Advocates should serve as a cautionary reminder to litigants that courts will not merely rubber-stamp EEOC consent decrees where a sufficient factual basis justifying approval is not provided to courts. 

Litigants must provide courts with more information than mere conclusory statements that the proposed consent decree is fair and reasonable for courts to approve of consent decrees.  Otherwise, litigants may find themselves forced to backtrack in the settlement approval process.