EEOC Litigation and Enforcement in the early Trump Administration: key trends and implications

The EEOC has filed more than 50 lawsuits since January, reflecting continued enforcement activity despite the Commission’s lack of a quorum. Under the Trump Administration, the agency has shifted priorities—ordering the closure all pending disparate impact cases and focusing on intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) instead. Disability and pregnancy accommodation disputes, harassment, and retaliation dominate the docket while religious discrimination cases may be trending upward. At the same time, the Administration’s broader push to curtail diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts signals heightened risk around “reverse discrimination” claims, requiring employers to reexamine DEI programs and workplace policies.

Filings to Date

Since January, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed more than 50 new lawsuits, spanning claims of disability discrimination, pregnancy and gender harassment, religion, age, and retaliation.  While the volume reflects continued activity at the district office level, the overall pace and scope of filings appear to be shaped by the Trump Administration’s directives and the Commission’s current lack of a quorum.

The absence of a quorum at the Commission level has constrained the agency’s ability to pursue systemic or high-impact cases requiring Commission authorization. Instead, district offices have focused on more traditional, individual and small group enforcement actions—often tied to accommodation disputes (particularly pregnancy and disability), hostile work environment claims, and failures to address harassment despite repeated complaints.  Several vaccine-related cases, a vestige of pandemic policies, also remain in the pipeline.

At the same time, the Administration has directed a significant shift in enforcement priorities. Following an April 2025 Executive Order instructing the EEOC to “deprioritize” enforcement of disparate impact claims, according to an internal EEOC memorandum obtained by Bloomberg Law, the agency will close all pending charges based solely on disparate impact discrimination by September 30, issuing “right to sue” letters and allowing workers to pursue those claims privately in federal court. The memo implements the President’s April order halting enforcement of disparate impact theories across federal agencies, with limited exceptions. The EEOC has already withdrawn its disparate impact lawsuit against Sheetz Inc. and instructed staff not to pursue conciliation or investigation of such charges absent special approval. Combined with earlier restrictions on enforcement related to transgender protections, the agency is clearly narrowing its scope to intentional discrimination (“disparate treatment”) cases.

The data from this year underscores the result: a docket heavy on accommodation disputes and harassment, with relatively few systemic impact filings. Pregnancy accommodation cases are especially prominent, with multiple lawsuits alleging termination or constructive discharge following requests for modified duties or leave. Disability cases also continue to dominate the EEOC’s portfolio, often involving denials of remote work, leave, or medical accommodations. Religion-based cases remain visible with a possible up trend based due the Administration’s desire to expand religious freedoms within the federal government and beyond, including disputes around Sabbath observance and vaccine mandates and new guidance stating telework for religious reasons is an accommodation for federal workers despite the in-person work requirement.

Status of DEI Enforcement

Parallel to these developments, the Trump Administration has advanced efforts to curtail workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. While the EEOC has not yet filed new cases challenging DEI programs as reverse discrimination, senior Administration officials have repeatedly signaled skepticism about such efforts.  While the EEOC maintains that its mandate is to enforce equal opportunity for all remains, it has issued guidance focusing on whether DEI initiatives perpetuate discrimination and hinting at the potential of an increase in “reverse discrimination” cases. The absence of a quorum may be what is delaying the filing of cases that may allege systemic “reverse discrimination” based on company policies. Employers should anticipate increased scrutiny of hiring, promotion, and training programs that reference demographic targets or preferences. Even in the absence of formal agency enforcement, commentary from the Administration underscores the need for companies to evaluate whether DEI programs could be perceived as creating advantages—or disadvantages—based on protected characteristics. This remains a key consideration when reviewing employment practices, terms, and conditions to mitigate litigation risk.

Key Take Aways for Employers

For employers, the picture is mixed. On the one hand, the curtailing of disparate impact enforcement removes a longstanding area of EEOC scrutiny, especially around hiring practices and background checks. On the other, district offices continue to push forward on day-to-day accommodation and harassment cases, often where employers fail to engage in the interactive process or take corrective action following complaints. The lack of a quorum and central coordination has not eliminated litigation risk—it has simply reshaped it.

Looking ahead, the EEOC under the Trump Administration is narrowing its enforcement lens while leaving individual and intentional discrimination cases very much on the table. Employers should remain vigilant in documenting their accommodation processes, ensuring complaint mechanisms are in place and effective, and avoiding even the appearance of retaliation. At the same time, the retreat from disparate impact enforcement may shift more of that litigation risk to the private plaintiffs’ bar, as workers pursue their claims directly in federal court following the agency’s closures.

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2025 White & Case LLP}