Tag: EEOC

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: In FY 2026 (October 1, 2025 to September 30, 2026), the EEOC’s litigation enforcement activity experienced a modest uptick compared to FY 2025. By the numbers, FY 2026 concluded with 96 lawsuits filed, marking an increase from the 94 lawsuits filed in FY 2025. Although the Commission remains well below its modern enforcement peak of 217 lawsuits filed in FY 2018, the increase suggests that the EEOC has stabilized its litigation program after several years of fluctuating enforcement activity.

Overall filing totals remain comparatively low by historical standards. However, one common theme of EEOC-initiated litigation holds true: the importance of location and industry. Our analysis of the FY 2026 litigation data demonstrates that the Commission maintained an active enforcement presence while directing its resources toward targeted priorities involving disability discrimination, pregnancy-related claims, religious discrimination, and employers in several key industries. 

In sum, while the EEOC is not filing lawsuits at the pace seen during prior administrations, the Commission continues to pursue strategic enforcement litigation. Employers should continue monitoring developments closely — particularly in the geographic regions (i.e. Chicago and Philadelphia) and industries (i.e. hospitality and retail) mentioned below — and ensure compliance with all federal anti-discrimination laws and EEOC initiatives.

Lawsuit Filings Based On Month And Year

The EEOC’s fiscal year ends each year on September 30th. As in prior years, the Commission concentrated a substantial portion of its lawsuit filings near fiscal year-end. In September 2026 alone, the EEOC filed 30 lawsuits, accounting for nearly a third of all FY 2026 filings. Although September remained the busiest filing month, the concentration of year-end filings was less pronounced than in FY 2025, when 35 lawsuits were filed during the final month of the fiscal year.

Unlike FY 2025, where filing activity was relatively subdued until September, FY 2026 featured several periods of heightened activity throughout the year. The Commission filed 21 lawsuits in March 2026 and another 18 lawsuits in June 2026. After a slower July, filing activity once again accelerated through August and September, culminating in the customary year-end litigation surge.

The filing pattern suggests a more evenly distributed enforcement strategy throughout the fiscal year compared to previous years, though the EEOC’s traditional year-end filing push remained intact.

Comparing FY 2026 to prior years, the EEOC filed more lawsuits than FY 2025 (94 filings), but substantially fewer than FY 2024 (111 filings) and FY 2023 (143 filings). Although overall litigation levels remain significantly below historical highs, the increase in FY 2026 demonstrates a renewed willingness by the Commission to pursue federal court enforcement actions.

Lawsuit Filings Based On EEOC District Offices

In addition to tracking total filings, we closely monitor which of the EEOC’s 15 district offices are most actively initiating litigation. In FY 2026, Chicago and Philadelphia had 12 filings. Phoenix, Indianapolis, and St. Louis each filed 7 lawsuits. Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, and Dallas had 6 filings, while Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York and San Francisco each recorded 5 filings. Memphis had the lowest total with 2 filings.

Like prior years, the Chicago and Philadelphia District Offices remained the primary drivers of EEOC litigation activity nationwide. Chicago increased its enforcement activity from 11 filings in FY 2025 to 12 filings in FY 2026, and Philadelphia likewise increased its activity from 11 filings to 12 filings.

Dallas doubled its activity, rising from 3 lawsuits in FY 2025 to 6 lawsuits in FY 2026. In contrast, several offices experienced modest declines, including Indianapolis, Houston, and Miami.

Overall, the data demonstrates that EEOC litigation activity remains broadly distributed throughout the country but continues to be concentrated among a handful of particularly active district offices. Employers with significant operations in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Phoenix should remain particularly attentive to EEOC charge activity and enforcement developments within those jurisdictions.

Lawsuit Filings Based On Type Of Discrimination

We also analyze the types of lawsuits the EEOC files in terms of both statutes and allegations to determine how the Commission’s enforcement priorities are evolving.

Statutory Basis

When considered by statute, Title VII again dominated the EEOC’s enforcement portfolio. In FY 2026, the EEOC filed 54 Title VII lawsuits, representing approximately 53% of all statutory filings. There were 56 Title VII lawsuits filed in FY 2025.

ADA litigation remained the second-largest category, with 36 filings compared to 35 in FY 2025. Disability discrimination continues to represent one of the Commission’s principal enforcement priorities, as the ADA filings show yet again.

One of the most notable developments in FY 2026 involved the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The EEOC filed 12 PWFA lawsuits, doubling its FY 2025 total of 6 filings. This sharp increase confirms that pregnancy-accommodation enforcement remains a major strategic priority for the Commission.

The EEOC also filed 3 ADEA lawsuits and 4 Pregnancy Discrimination Act lawsuits. Notably, FY 2026 included the Commission’s first filings under both the Equal Pay Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in recent years, with one GINA case and one EPA cases filed.

The growth in PWFA litigation, coupled with the reappearance of EPA and GINA filings, suggests an expanding enforcement focus beyond the EEOC’s traditional Title VII and ADA docket.

Allegation Basis

The EEOC’s most frequently asserted allegations in FY 2026 remained disability discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation claims. Disability allegations appeared in 36 lawsuits, sex discrimination allegations appeared in 19 lawsuits, and retaliation claims were asserted in 17 lawsuits.

A significant development in FY 2026 was the substantial growth in pregnancy-related litigation. The EEOC alleged pregnancy discrimination in 16 lawsuits, making pregnancy one of the Commission’s most frequently asserted theories of discrimination.

Likewise, race discrimination claims rebounded dramatically. After only a handful of race-based lawsuits in FY 2025, the EEOC alleged race discrimination in 8 lawsuits during FY 2026. Religious discrimination litigation also increased substantially, appearing in 14 lawsuits.

Together, the increase in pregnancy, race, and religion-based claims suggests the Commission broadened its enforcement focus during FY 2026 while maintaining its traditional emphasis on disability, sex discrimination, and retaliation matters.

Lawsuit Filings Based On Industry

Analysis of FY 2026 filings by industry reveals several notable shifts in the industries most frequently targeted by EEOC enforcement actions.

Hospitality remained the most impacted industry, accounting for 21.3% of all FY 2026 filings. Retail closely followed with 22.5% of filings and experienced one of the largest increases compared to FY 2025, when it represented only 11.3% of lawsuits. The return of Retail as a primary enforcement target marks one of the most significant shifts in this year’s data.

Transportation and Logistics also experienced a substantial increase, accounting for 16.3% of FY 2026 filings compared to 10% in FY 2025. Manufacturing remained steady at 15% of all filings.

Healthcare, by contrast, experienced a meaningful decline. After representing 21.3% of EEOC filings in FY 2025, Healthcare accounted for only 14.8% of FY 2026 lawsuits. Construction also declined modestly from 8.8% to 7.5%.

Another notable change is the emergence of Education among the Commission’s most affected industries, representing 3.8% of all filings.

Overall, the distribution of lawsuits reflects a broader enforcement focus than in FY 2025. While Hospitality remained a consistent target, Retail and Transportation & Logistics experienced the largest increases in enforcement activity. Employers operating in these industries should remain particularly vigilant regarding compliance efforts and internal equal employment opportunity practices.

Looking Ahead To Fiscal Year 2027

Moving into FY 2027, the EEOC appears positioned to continue its targeted enforcement strategy while maintaining a relatively consistent level of litigation activity. Although FY 2026 produced only a modest increase in overall filings, several substantive trends emerged that may foreshadow future priorities.

Most notably, the Commission substantially increased litigation involving pregnancy-related accommodations under the PWFA and expanded its focus on race and religion-based discrimination claims. At the same time, traditional enforcement areas such as disability discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation remained central components of the EEOC’s litigation portfolio.

The geographic concentration of filings among the Chicago, Philadelphia, and Phoenix District Offices further demonstrates that employers must pay close attention not only to national EEOC priorities but also to regional enforcement trends.

Given the continued evolution of the Commission’s priorities, employers should expect the EEOC to remain active in pursuing strategic litigation designed to advance its enforcement objectives. Accordingly, employers should continue auditing workplace policies, training programs, accommodation practices, and discrimination complaint procedures to minimize litigation exposure and ensure compliance with federal employment laws.

Key Employer Takeaways

In several respects, FY 2026 represented both continuity and change in EEOC enforcement activity. While overall lawsuit filings increased modestly from 94 to 96 cases, enforcement remained highly targeted and concentrated in specific statutory areas, allegations, industries, and geographic regions.

Perhaps most significantly, the Commission doubled its PWFA filings and substantially increased race, religion, and pregnancy-related litigation. Disability discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation claims remained cornerstone enforcement priorities, while Retail and Transportation & Logistics emerged as increasingly significant enforcement targets.

Although total litigation activity remains well below pre-pandemic levels, FY 2026 suggests the EEOC has found a stable enforcement footing and continues to deploy its litigation authority strategically. As a result, employers should remain proactive in ensuring compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws and closely monitor EEOC enforcement developments throughout FY 2027.

Finally, employers can and should expect the EEOC to start paying closer attention to the use of AI in the hiring and recruiting processes. On the eve of federal government midterm elections, AI is front and center in terms of hot-button issues. The Commission’s enforcement priorities are apt to follow suit. Employers should take a proactive approach to making sure they ethically and responsibly incorporate AI into their employment practices in compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws. 

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Denis I. Yavorskiy, and Andrew P. Quay

Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 19, 2026, in EEOC v. Recovery Innovations, Inc. d/b/a RI Int’l, No. 25-CV-767, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110782 (E.D.N.C. May 19, 2026), Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied a partial motion to dismiss a Title VII pattern or practice claims after finding that the EEOC’s complaint properly pled “severe or pervasive” harassment and sufficiently described a group of similarly aggrieved female employees.  Id. at *4, 5.  Judge Boyle held that alleged unwelcome conduct from a supervisor who supervised “at least some of the” allegedly injured workers was “sufficiently severe or pervasive” and that the universe of alleged victims was sufficiently described without identifying the alleged victims.  Id. 

The decision reinforces the importance of authoritative conduct and the leniency afforded to plaintiffs and the EEOC in bringing pattern or practice claims on behalf of alleged victims of discrimination.

Case Background

Defendant Recovery Innovations operates the Dix Crisis Intervention Center in Jacksonville, North Carolina.  Id. at *1, 2.  The Jacksonville center provides outpatient services for mental health disorders and substance abuse.  Id. at *2.  Recovery Innovations hired Chiara Munna as a “Peer Support Specialist” at the Jacksonville center.  Id.  Munna’s shift supervisor allegedly made “repeated sexual comments to the women under his supervision, touched them sexually, and sent at least two of them unwelcome sexual text messages and photos.”  Id. 

The EEOC filed suit on behalf of Munna and a group of similarly aggrieved female employees, asserting claims for: (1) sex harassment and hostile work environment under Title VII; (2) failure to accommodate under the ADA; (3) discriminatory discharge under the ADA; and (4) ADA record keeping violation under the ADA.  Id.  The Title VII claim is brought on behalf of Munna and “similarly aggrieved women.”  Id.  Recovery Innovations moved to dismiss the Title VII claims on behalf of the group of workers but not those brought on Munna’s behalf individually.  Id.

The complaint alleges that Munna’s shift supervisor “engaged in unwelcome and offensive conduct ‘on nearly every occasion’ the [workers] encountered him,” including repeatedly insisting on “hugging them, elicit[ing] physical contact by impeding their paths or cornering and intimidating them, mak[ing] unwelcome sexual comments,” and sending sexually explicit photos of himself to at least two class members, among other misconduct.  Id. at *4.

The Court’s Analysis

Recovery Innovations raised two arguments in its motion to dismiss.  Its “chief argument” in support of dismissal was that the complaint failed to allege “severe and pervasive” harassment.  Id.  Recovery Innovations’ second argument was that the complaint “insufficiently describes” the group of allegedly injured workers, as it did not provide sufficient notice of “when the harassment occurred or precisely what unwelcome conduct each [worker] suffered.”  Id.  Judge Boyle rejected both of these arguments and denied Recovery Innovations’ partial motion to dismiss the Title VII pattern or practice claims.

First, as to Defendant’s “severe and pervasive” argument, Judge Boyle held that the alleged conduct was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the class members’ conditions of employment” because “‘a supervisor’s power and authority invests his or her harassing conduct with a particularly threatening character.’”  Id. at *4, 5 (quoting Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264, 278 (4th Cir. 2015)).

Second, as to Defendant’s argument that the complaint insufficiently describes the group of alleged victims, Judge Boyle found that “[a]n EEOC complaint brought on behalf of a [group of victims] is not . . . ‘deficient for failing to identify the numerous alleged victims of discrimination.’”  Id. at *5 (quoting EEOC v. PBM Graphics Inc., 877 F. Supp. 2d 334, 347 (M.D.N.C. 2012)).  In addition, because the complaint alleged that the alleged victims reported the supervisor’s conduct to the facility’s program supervisor, Recovery Innovations received “fair notice” of the “time frame and scope” of the workers at issue. Id.

Having found that the complaint adequately pled “severe or pervasive” harassment and sufficiently described the group of aggrieved female employees, Judge Boyle denied Recovery Innovations’ partial motion to dismiss.  Id.

Implications For Employers

Recovery Innovations shines light on the “severe or pervasive” standard under Title VII when applied to a supervisor’s alleged conduct, as well as the pleading leniency surrounding claims that encompass alleged victims of discrimination.  Corporate counsel should implement and update training for managerial employees regarding sexual misconduct to make every effort to avoid Title VII pattern or practice claims.