EEOC’s New National Enforcement Plan signals a shift in enforcement priorities.

Written By: James R. O’Connor, Beatrice Nisoli

On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released the National Enforcement Plan (NEP), outlining the agency’s substantive priorities for anti-discrimination enforcement, investigation and litigation. The new six-page plan rescinds the agency’s previous Strategic Enforcement Plan, which was approved during the Biden administration in 2023. The NEP is now in effect and will remain in place through 2029.

What’s Staying the Same?

The NEP reaffirms the EEOC’s existing three-pronged framework for addressing workplace discrimination, consisting of the following measures:

• Prevention through education and outreach.
• Voluntary resolution of disputes, including alternative dispute resolution, pre-determination settlements and conciliation agreements.
• Enforcement through litigation.

What’s Changing?

Overall, the NEP reflects the EEOC’s intent to focus on facially discriminatory policies and programs, as well as repeated and overt forms of intentional discrimination. The EEOC identified several key enforcement priorities, including addressing race- and sex-based discrimination tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, protecting workers from anti-American national origin discrimination, preserving access to single-sex workplace spaces, and promoting religious accommodations in the workplace.

The following three initiatives are intended to advance those priorities:

Departure from Disparate Impact Liability

The NEP evidences the EEOC’s intent to move away from using “disparate impact” claims. These are cases where a policy seems neutral on its face but may still be challenged if it affects certain protected groups more than others. The EEOC also stated it will stop pursuing current lawsuits that rely on these types of claims. Instead, the agency will prioritize “disparate treatment” cases, which involve intentional discrimination.

The EEOC identified the following examples of facially discriminatory policies, practices and programs:

• Job advertisements that encourage prospective employees with certain protected characteristics to apply, or otherwise welcoming “visa holders” or “diverse candidates.”
• Fellowships that exclude individuals from employment based on a protected characteristic.
• Initiatives that assign or group employees into particular job duties based on protected characteristics.
• Company-wide denials of accommodations.
• Systemic harassment.

DEI Programs as Discriminatory Initiatives

The NEP classifies DEI programs as an example of cases involving discrimination perpetuated by broad-based employment policies and practices. The EEOC provided the following examples:

• Practices that encourage race or sex-based decision-making in hiring, promotions, compensation or bonuses.
• Policies that require diverse hiring panels.
• Policies that require candidates to submit diversity statements as part of a hiring or admissions process.
• Disclosing when employees’ race or sex data is shared with managers, the public, or other non-HR personnel or legal representatives.
• Initiatives limiting access to internships and fellowships.

Cases Testing the Scope of Supreme Court Precedent

The NEP also states that the EEOC will prioritize cases and investigations that may apply, interpret or clarify recent Supreme Court decisions. The plan specifically identifies the following cases and fact patterns:

• Cases involving affirmative action or other Title VII analyses of DEI programs, including “majority-group” workplace bias claims.
• Cases involving voluntary affirmative action programs.
• Cases involving employers’ obligations to provide religious accommodations under Title VII.
• Cases involving sex-based classifications in workplace spaces, including cases related to employees’ right to “single-sex intimate spaces.”
• Cases involving the scope of liability under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

The NEP also identifies other enforcement priorities, including cases involving disagreements among federal courts of appeals on anti-discrimination issues, cases protecting vulnerable workers—such as survivors of sexual assault, workers with disabilities, and adolescent workers—and “cases involving the integrity or effectiveness of the [EEOC’s] enforcement process.”