What the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Chair, the Labor Department Solicitor, and Sixty Years of Civil Rights Law Are Now Telling Employers
The federal government recently convened a panel featuring EEOC Chair Andrea R. Lucas and Department of Labor Solicitor Jonathan Berry, two Senate-confirmed officials who are actively reshaping the employment law landscape (the “Panel”). The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers organized the April 9, 2026 webinar, co-sponsored by the Bar Association of the District of Columbia and D.C. Bar Communities.
What was said deserves attention, because some of it will arrive at your door as a demand letter before you see it coming.
Here is what employers need to know.
DEI Isn’t Dead. Illegal DEI Is.
Let’s be precise, because the distinction carries legal consequences.
The Trump administration’s executive orders, including EO 14173, EO 14151, and EO 14398, do not prohibit employers from maintaining inclusive workplaces. They prohibit programs that amount to preferences, quotas, or race- or sex-based exclusions framed as equity initiatives.
If a mentorship program, internship pipeline, or leadership track excludes any group based on race, sex, or ethnicity, the issue is not philosophical. It is legal.
Chair Lucas noted that the EEOC has long been tasked with eliminating barriers to employment for all groups. What has changed is enforcement. That enforcement is now being applied more broadly across all protected classes.
The practical takeaway is straightforward. Review your programs. If anything limits participation based on protected characteristics, it should be reviewed before someone else does.
The False Claims Act Is Now an Employment Law Issue
If your company holds federal contracts or receives federal funding, this section matters.
EO 14398 requires contractors to certify that they are not operating unlawful DEI programs. That certification carries risk. Under the False Claims Act, inaccurate certifications can expose employers to treble damages and civil penalties, and private individuals may bring claims on the government’s behalf.
This is not theoretical exposure. It is an active enforcement mechanism.
The EEOC Is Enforcing.
One of the most important data points from the Panel is this: the EEOC remains highly active in enforcement and oversight, even as the nature of its activity continues to evolve.
According to the EEOC’s FY 2025 accomplishments report, the agency recovered nearly $660 million for more than 17,600 individuals, processed over 88,000 new charges, and responded to nearly 270,000 inquiries.
This is not a dormant agency. Even though litigation filings have dipped to historically lower levels, the EEOC’s enforcement footprint remains significant, with continued focus on priority areas.
What has shifted is emphasis. Recent trends show that the EEOC is emphasizing quality and impact over sheer volume. Additionally, the EEOC is focusing more heavily on intentional discrimination, or disparate treatment, rather than purely statistical disparities.The result? A prioritization of systemic investigations, targeted equitable relief, and expanded compliance monitoring.
For employers, that means attention should remain on decision-making: discipline, promotion, hiring, and documentation.
Your ERGs Are Being Examined
Employee resource groups are not inherently problematic.
The risk arises when participation in those groups becomes tied to advancement, access, or evaluation in a way that effectively turns protected characteristics into employment criteria.
The structure matters. The documentation matters. The access to opportunity matters.
Unconscious Bias Training Still Requires Discipline
The EEOC Chair expressed skepticism about unconscious bias training. That position does not eliminate the legal reality that bias, intentional or not, continues to play a role in employment decisions and litigation.
The issue is not whether training exists. It is how it is designed and delivered.
Training that stereotypes, assigns fixed traits, or targets specific groups can create risk.
Training that treats bias as a universal human factor, applies consistently, and is grounded in defensible material is far more aligned with current enforcement expectations.
AI in the Workplace
If your company uses software to screen applicants, evaluate performance, or make employment decisions, documentation matters.
Even under shifting regulatory frameworks, tools that produce biased outcomes can still create exposure under intentional discrimination theories.
If AI is part of your process, understand it. Document it. Validate it.
Gender Identity Remains Contested
The EEOC’s current posture on gender identity claims is narrower than many court interpretations following Bostock v. Clayton County.
This is an evolving area. Federal courts, not agencies, will ultimately define the boundaries.
Employers operating across multiple states should align policies with the most protective applicable standards and document their reasoning.
Religious Accommodations
The Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy raised the standard for denying religious accommodations.
The prior “de minimis cost” standard no longer applies. Employers must now show substantial hardship.
Both the EEOC and the Department of Labor have identified religious accommodation as an active enforcement priority.
If your process is informal or inconsistent, that is a place to focus.
What You Should Do Right Now
Audit existing programs and policies.
Review training, internships, mentorships, and advancement tracks for exclusion risks.
Maintain consistent, documented accommodation processes.
Do not assume that past compliance guarantees current compliance.
If your organization operates in multiple states or holds government contracts, alignment across jurisdictions matters.
The Bottom Line
The law has not disappeared. Enforcement has shifted.
Employers who assume nothing has changed create risk for themselves. Employers who review, document, and adjust are better positioned when scrutiny arrives.
For employers operating across multiple jurisdictions, aligning compliance strategy with current enforcement trends requires consistency and careful judgment. When questions arise about programs, documentation, or risk exposure, it may be worth taking a closer look.