{"id":2565,"date":"2025-11-26T17:46:23","date_gmt":"2025-11-26T21:46:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2565"},"modified":"2025-11-26T18:59:49","modified_gmt":"2025-11-26T22:59:49","slug":"the-eeoc-can-chart-its-own-path-why-the-eeocs-latest-win-is-good-news-for-employers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/11\/26\/the-eeoc-can-chart-its-own-path-why-the-eeocs-latest-win-is-good-news-for-employers\/","title":{"rendered":"The EEOC Can Chart Its Own Path: Why The EEOC\u2019s Latest \u201cWin\u201d Is Good News For Employers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Adam D. Brown, and Elizabeth G. Underwood<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 <\/a>an Amazon delivery driver\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201cwin\u201d is likely the first in a series of challenges to the EEOC\u2019s stance on disparate impact litigation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cross contended that Amazon\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In January 2024, the EEOC\u2019s Denver office began investigating the charge.  But in April 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14281 titled \u201cRestoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In September 2025, the EEOC issued a memorandum requiring staff to close all investigations of disparate impact claims, which included Cross\u2019s claims.  Thereafter, Cross filed a lawsuit against the EEOC, alleging that she \u201cha[d] been denied the benefit of a full investigation\u201d by the Commission.  Cross v. EEOC<\/em>, No. 1:25-CV-3702, 2025 WL 3280764, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cross claimed the EEOC\u2019s memorandum violated \u00a7 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 \u201cselectively exclud[ing] categories of discrimination from the charge-investigation process;\u201d (2) the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in abruptly changing its policy; (3) the Commission\u2019s memorandum constituted a substantive rule that was \u201cin excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations\u201d; and (4) the Commission should have promulgated its memorandum through proper notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.  Id.<\/em>  Therefore, Cross sought a preliminary injunction requesting, among others, for her investigation to be reopened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court held Cross failed to establish that she had standing to bring her claims and thus dismissed Cross\u2019s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without addressing them on the merits.  To remedy Cross\u2019s alleged injuries, the Court suggested that Cross could pursue a Title VII action directly against Amazon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court determined that Cross did not show any judicially cognizable injury from the EEOC\u2019s closure of her investigation.  Moreover, the Court opined that \u201ceven 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.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court explained that \u201cfederal courts are \u2018not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive branch\u2019 should \u2018bring more\u2019 investigations and enforcement actions.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *4 (quoting United States v. Texas<\/em>, 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\u2019s investigation and enforcement decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s ruling is a win for companies, confirming that federal courts currently are not willing to interfere with the EEOC\u2019s internal investigation and enforcement policies regarding disparate impact claims.\u00a0 Even more broadly, the Court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crucially, however, employers are not in the clear.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u2019s lawsuit against the EEOC.  … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “The EEOC Can Chart Its Own Path: Why The EEOC\u2019s Latest \u201cWin\u201d Is Good News For Employers”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,146,149],"class_list":["post-2565","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eeoc-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":146,"user_id":741,"is_guest":0,"slug":"adbrown","display_name":"Adam Brown","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/08\/brownadam-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":149,"user_id":744,"is_guest":0,"slug":"eunderwood","display_name":"Elizabeth Underwood","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/10\/underwoodelizabeth-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2565","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2565"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2565\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2565"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}