{"id":3007,"date":"2026-06-05T14:48:23","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T18:48:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3007"},"modified":"2026-06-05T14:48:25","modified_gmt":"2026-06-05T18:48:25","slug":"president-trumps-new-national-enforcement-program-for-the-eeoc-and-what-it-means-for-employers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/06\/05\/president-trumps-new-national-enforcement-program-for-the-eeoc-and-what-it-means-for-employers\/","title":{"rendered":"President Trump\u2019s New National Enforcement Program For The EEOC And What It Means For Employers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Ryan T. Garippo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the \u201cEEOC\u201d) announced its National Enforcement Plan<\/a> (the \u201cNEP\u201d) for fiscal years 2025 \u2013 2029.\u00a0 The NEP reflects the EEOC\u2019s new priorities under President Donald Trump and formally rescinds the agency\u2019s strategic objections during President Joseph Biden\u2019s administration.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Employers should take note of this development as it is clear that the NEP signals a forthcoming crackdown on: (1) employers\u2019 diversity, equity, and inclusion (\u201cDEI\u201d) programs; (2) instances of \u201canti-American\u201d bias; (3) efforts to limit \u201csingle-sex spaces\u201d for transgender individuals; and (4) failures to provide religious accommodations.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EEOC\u2019s National Enforcement Plan<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As readers of this blog will know, the EEOC looks and acts differently under President Trump than it did under President Biden.  President Biden\u2019s strategic priorities, which we wrote about here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>, largely focused on discrimination resulting from the use of artificial intelligence, preventing systemic harassment, enforcing equal pay obligations, and protecting historically marginalized groups.  President Trump\u2019s EEOC is a lot different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 4, 2026, the EEOC\u2019s Chair Andrea Lucas (R) and Commissioner Brittany Panuccio (R) rolled out the agency\u2019s new NEP over the objection of Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal (D).  The NEP describes the agency\u2019s areas of strategic focus because \u201cit is not feasible for the [EEOC] to devote the same amount of resources to each charge.\u201d  (NEP at 2.)  Thus, \u201cthe agency must continue to be strategic about the matters it prioritizes to maximize the agency\u2019s impact.\u201d  (Id<\/em>.)  To that end, the EEOC identified four major areas where it intends to be more proactive in its enforcement efforts, each of which is discussed more fully below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First<\/em><\/strong>, the EEOC stated an explicit intention to attempt to \u201c[r]emedy[] DEI-related race and sex discrimination.\u201d  (Id. <\/em>at 6.)  In particular, the EEOC cited the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s recent decisions in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services<\/em>, 605 U.S. 303 (2025), Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri<\/em>, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College<\/em>, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) as the basis for its decision.  As a result, we expect to see continued efforts from President Trump\u2019s administration to crackdown on DEI programs both in the workplace and in higher education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second<\/em><\/strong>, the EEOC states that it plans to prosecute claims with an intent to \u201cprotect[] American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination.\u201d  (NEP at 6.)  This prosecutorial decision tracks with last year\u2019s first-of-its-kind settlement against LeoPalace Resort, which we blogged about here<\/a>, where a group of American workers alleged that they were subject to less favorable treatment than their Japanese colleagues.  We can also expect these enforcement actions to continue throughout the second Trump administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third<\/em><\/strong>, the EEOC intends to ensure access for women to \u201csingle-sex spaces at work\u201d due to the \u201cbinary nature of sex.\u201d  (Id.<\/em>)  This objective continues to signal a rollback of President Biden\u2019s efforts to enforce protections in favor of transgender workers, and tracks with the agency\u2019s decision last year to dismiss all lawsuits seeking to enforce such protections.  As readers will recall, we blogged about the decision to dismiss these lawsuits here<\/a> because they were purportedly based on \u201cgender ideology extremism.\u201d  This area is one where there is the potential for a significant uptick in EEOC enforcement actions and investigations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth<\/em><\/strong>, the EEOC stated its continued commitment to \u201creligious liberty rights\u201d including the right \u201cto receive religious accommodations and be free from religious discrimination, harassment, and related retaliation.\u201d  (Id.<\/em>)  As we explained here<\/a>, however, employers can expect certain types of religious bias to be policed more heavily than others.  In accordance with President Trump\u2019s policy platform, EEOC Chair Lucas has explicitly cited \u201cantisemitism\u201d as the basis for the current emphasis on religious discrimination.  This enforcement priority tracks with recent appellate court decisions, such as EEOC v. Center One, LLC<\/em>, No. 22-2943, 2024 WL 379956, at *4 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2024), where the Third Circuit held that forcing an employer to work on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah could create \u201c\u2019intolerable\u2019 conditions of discrimination.\u201d  Thus, the EEOC is signaling its intent to continue to build on precedent like Center One <\/em>in the religious discrimination space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Employers should take note of these enforcement priorities as it previews the types of cases that the EEOC intends to pursue both through investigations and litigation.  Thus, if they have not already, corporate counsel should consider whether any revisions are necessary to their organization\u2019s DEI programs as well as to any policies concerning differential treatment provided based on national origin, sex, or religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, if an organization receives notice of an EEOC charge or subpoena \u2013 particularly one targeting a pattern, practice, or policy based on the above-mentioned objectives \u2013 it should take such allegations extremely seriously and contact experienced counsel to help them navigate the process.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Ryan T. Garippo Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the \u201cEEOC\u201d) announced its National Enforcement Plan (the \u201cNEP\u201d) for fiscal years 2025 \u2013 2029.\u00a0 The NEP reflects the EEOC\u2019s new priorities under President Donald Trump and formally rescinds the … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “President Trump\u2019s New National Enforcement Program For The EEOC And What It Means 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":[7,96,127],"class_list":["post-3007","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":96,"user_id":655,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gschaller","display_name":"George Schaller","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/07\/schallergeorge-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":127,"user_id":692,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rgarippo","display_name":"Ryan Garippo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/09\/garipporyan-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\/3007","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=3007"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3007\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3007"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}