Employment Discrimination Lawsuit News: EEOC, DEI, and DOJ Cases

Employment discrimination lawsuit news in late 2025 and 2026 points in one direction: more cases, bigger recoveries, and a sharp reorientation of federal enforcement. Federal courts saw more than 20,000 discrimination filings in 2025, the EEOC recovered close to $660 million for workers, and the agency’s new leadership has redirected its litigation resources toward diversity programs, religious accommodations, and claims of anti-American national origin bias. Two Supreme Court decisions have made it easier for any worker to get a discrimination case past the pleading stage, and a March 2026 executive order now requires federal contractors to certify they are not running “racially discriminatory DEI activities.”

Filings and Recoveries Hit Record Levels

Federal employment lawsuits reached 26,635 total cases in 2025, with discrimination filings alone exceeding 20,000 for the first time, up from 17,413 in 2024. Disability accommodation cases climbed about 42% year-over-year to roughly 6,800. Family and Medical Leave Act filings jumped to 4,707 from 3,593 the year before.¹

The EEOC took in 88,201 new discrimination charges in fiscal year 2025 and resolved 90,743, a 4% increase in resolutions over the prior year. Total monetary relief came to almost $660 million for 17,680 workers, the agency’s third-highest recovery in recent history. Pre-litigation enforcement alone produced $528 million for 13,351 workers in the private and state and local government sectors, which the EEOC calls the highest such figure in its 60-year history.²

The agency itself filed only 94 merit lawsuits in FY 2025, a ten-year low, though 96.5% of those cases resolved favorably through settlement or judgment.³ Analysts have linked the drop in EEOC litigation to the surge in private filings: workers who once might have waited for agency action are going to court themselves.¹

The EEOC’s New Enforcement Direction

Under Chair Andrea Lucas, who secured a Commission majority in October 2025, the EEOC scrapped the Biden-era Strategic Enforcement Plan and adopted a new National Enforcement Plan for FY 2025 through 2029, effective June 4, 2026.⁴ The plan tells investigators to prioritize intentional discrimination over disparate impact theories and to “eliminate the use of disparate impact theories in investigations to the maximum degree possible.” It also states that the agency will use prosecutorial discretion to “advance the Administration’s policy objectives and comply with relevant Executive Orders.”⁵

Named priorities include DEI-related discrimination, with attention to race- or sex-based quotas, “aspirational goals” that function as quotas, mandatory diversity statements, diverse-slate hiring policies, and compensation tied to demographic goals. The plan also flags what it calls anti-American national origin discrimination against U.S. citizens or nationals, religious liberty and accommodation, and the defense of single-sex spaces and the “binary nature of sex.”⁵ The EEOC also rescinded its 2024 harassment guidance, which had treated certain gender-identity-related conduct as workplace harassment, and Chair Lucas sent Fortune 500 companies a reminder letter about Title VII compliance in DEI programs.⁶ Democratic Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal called the plan a “dramatic shift in the agency’s enforcement, outreach, and litigation programs.”

The DEI Cases Drawing the Most Attention

EEOC v. The New York Times

The EEOC sued The New York Times on May 5, 2026, in the Southern District of New York, alleging the company violated Title VII by denying a promotion to a white male editor because of his race and sex.⁷ The complaint says the editor applied for a Deputy Real Estate Editor position in early 2025 and that the company hired an outside candidate, a non-white woman whom the agency characterizes as lacking required industry experience and as having been rated lower by the interview panel than other finalists.⁸ The agency ties the decision to the Times’ 2021 “Call to Action,” which set goals to increase Black and Latino representation in leadership by 50% by 2025 and tied DEI expectations to leader evaluations and compensation. Chair Lucas said the case signals that “there is no diversity exception” to Title VII. The suit seeks a jury trial, backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, and promotion of the employee.

Nike

In February 2026, the EEOC filed a subpoena enforcement action against Nike in the Eastern District of Missouri, tied to a Commissioner’s Charge alleging a pattern of disparate treatment against white employees, applicants, and training program participants.⁹ The investigation targets Nike’s “2025 Targets,” representation goals for racial and ethnic minorities at the director level and above allegedly tied to executive compensation, along with 16 programs the EEOC says provided race-restricted mentoring and leadership opportunities.¹⁰

Northwestern Mutual

A similar subpoena enforcement action was filed against Northwestern Mutual in November 2025 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The underlying charge came from a compliance officer who alleged he was denied advancement because of his sex, race, and national origin, and was retaliated against for complaining about the firm’s diversity policy.¹¹ Northwestern Mutual called the agency’s requests a “fishing expedition.”¹²

Settlements in the Same Vein

Planned Parenthood of Illinois agreed in March 2026 to pay $500,000 to resolve findings that it required race-segregated “affinity caucuses” and engaged in DEI-related harassment of white employees.¹³ HCL America settled for roughly $500,000 in April 2026 over allegations that a candidate was rejected for not being “diverse” and for being “too old.” Kickback Jack’s paid $1.1 million in February 2026 to settle claims it refused to hire male applicants for front-of-house restaurant positions, and Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast was sued that same month over an employee event that excluded male workers.⁶

Two Supreme Court Rulings Lowering the Bar

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

Decided unanimously on June 5, 2025, Ames eliminated the requirement in some federal circuits that majority-group employees show extra “background circumstances” to support a Title VII claim.⁶ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Court, held that Title VII protects “any individual” and does not impose different evidentiary burdens based on group membership. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred separately, questioning the continued usefulness of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.¹⁴ Employees challenging DEI-related decisions no longer face a higher pleading hurdle in circuits that had previously imposed one.¹

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Decided in April 2024, Muldrow continues to shape filings. The Court held that workers bringing Title VII claims need only show “some harm” to an identifiable term or condition of employment, rather than “significant” harm. Employees can now pursue claims over unwanted transfers, schedule changes, or loss of workplace privileges even when their pay and title stay the same.¹

Major Verdicts and Settlements

The EEOC’s $21 million class settlement with Columbia University over antisemitic harassment of employees is the largest public settlement the agency has secured in nearly 20 years and its largest recovery for Jewish workers.² The claims involved harassment based on Jewish faith, ancestry, and Israeli national origin following October 7, 2023. A claims process for current and former employees opened in December 2025.¹⁵

A Los Angeles jury returned a $103 million verdict against Liberty Mutual Insurance in an age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation case, including $20 million for emotional distress and $83 million in punitive damages.¹⁶ A judge later struck the punitive damages award, finding insufficient evidence of “malice, oppression, or fraud” and deeming the ratio grossly excessive. The $20 million emotional distress award stands.¹⁷

A Colorado federal jury awarded $11.5 million against the Society for Human Resource Management in December 2025. Rehab Mohamed, an Egyptian-American instructional designer, alleged she was fired shortly after filing a racial discrimination complaint against her manager. The jury found SHRM liable for both racial discrimination and retaliation, awarding $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.¹⁸ Trial evidence showed that SHRM began drafting Mohamed’s termination documents on the same day she filed a retaliation complaint. The court denied SHRM’s post-trial motions to set aside the verdict, and the organization has said it will appeal to the Tenth Circuit.¹⁹

Religious accommodation cases tied to COVID-19 vaccine mandates produced sizable payouts. A $15 million public conciliation involving dozens of workers denied religious exemptions was announced in March 2026. UT-Battelle agreed to pay over $2.8 million, and MercyHealth paid over $1 million in similar matters.⁶ A San Diego jury awarded more than $11 million to a 74-year-old medical screener in Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, who alleged she was fired for requesting a chair as a reasonable accommodation for chronic back pain.²⁰ Jackson National Life Insurance paid $20.5 million to settle EEOC claims of a racially and sexually hostile work environment against 21 former employees, and LeoPalace in Guam entered a $1.4 million consent decree for national origin discrimination favoring Japanese workers.¹⁵

DOJ Suits Against State and Local Employers

The Department of Justice’s Employment Litigation Section, which enforces Title VII against public employers, has been busy.

On February 24, 2026, the DOJ sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging UCLA fostered a hostile work environment for Jewish and Israeli employees.²¹ The complaint cites assaults on Jewish professors, swastika graffiti, chants targeting Jewish individuals, and the spring 2024 campus encampment that allegedly blocked Jewish employees from accessing parts of campus. The DOJ says UCLA’s Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion “routinely ignored” over one hundred complaints of antisemitism, with no one formally disciplined for antisemitic conduct despite hundreds of reviewed complaints.²²

On January 14, 2026, the DOJ sued the State of Minnesota over statutes and regulations requiring agencies to implement race- and sex-based affirmative action plans to “balance” their workforces. Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a “matter of general public importance,” entitling the government to a three-judge district court panel and direct appeal to the Supreme Court.²³

In December 2025, the DOJ sued Minneapolis Public Schools, alleging its collective bargaining agreement violated Title VII by giving preferential treatment in layoff, reassignment, and reinstatement decisions to teachers who are members of an “underrepresented population.” The suit also challenges a memorandum of agreement with a nonprofit that allegedly provided separate interview and hiring processes for its fellows.²⁴ Additional investigations are open into the Baltimore City Health Department, the California Environmental Protection Agency, George Mason University, Des Moines Public Schools, and the city of Austin, Texas.²⁵

Where Transgender Discrimination Claims Stand

The EEOC’s retreat from transgender workplace protections has itself become the subject of litigation. In July 2025, FreeState Justice sued the agency in the District of Maryland, alleging it had “abdicated” its duty to enforce workplace protections for transgender workers by effectively excluding gender identity claims from substantive enforcement.²⁶

On June 12, 2026, Chief Judge George Russell III dismissed the case without prejudice, ruling that courts lack authority to review the EEOC’s discretionary decisions about how it allocates enforcement resources. He described the agency’s altered approach as “deeply troubling” even while dismissing the suit. Under Chair Lucas, the EEOC has requested dismissal of nearly all pending lawsuits filed on behalf of transgender plaintiffs and rescinded Biden-era harassment guidance regarding misgendering. It continues to accept charges from transgender workers but has sharply limited its willingness to litigate them.²⁶

Retaliation Is Still the Most Common Charge

Retaliation remained the single most frequent category of EEOC charge in fiscal year 2025, a spot it has held for well over a decade.²⁷ These claims typically ride alongside underlying allegations of harassment, race discrimination, or disability discrimination, and the EEOC expects retaliation to stay the top charge basis through at least the end of 2026.²⁸ The SHRM verdict is a vivid example of what retaliation damages can look like when a jury believes an employer built its case for firing after the complaint. The Supreme Court held in 2024 that Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowers need only show their protected activity contributed to an adverse action, without proving the employer specifically intended to retaliate.

Cases and Issues to Watch

Several fights are moving through the appellate courts.

DEI training as a hostile work environment: A growing number of white employees are suing over mandatory anti-bias training, arguing it creates a race-based hostile work environment through stereotyping. Active cases target training programs at the Colorado Department of Corrections, the City of Seattle, and Penn State University. Courts have signaled that training with a “constant drumbeat of negative language” about a racial group may sustain such a claim, though a single instance is likely not enough.²⁹
The McDonnell Douglas pretext requirement: Plaintiffs are pushing appellate courts to reconsider the long-standing requirement that discrimination plaintiffs prove an employer’s stated reason for an adverse action was pretextual. Cases in the Fifth Circuit and a petition pending before the Supreme Court are testing whether that judge-made requirement has any statutory basis.²⁹
Religious accommodation costs after Groff v. DeJoy: Litigation continues over what counts as “substantial increased costs” sufficient to establish undue hardship when denying a religious accommodation, particularly in COVID-19 vaccine mandate cases. A petition in Does v. Hochul asks the Supreme Court whether state laws directly contrary to Title VII’s religious accommodation requirements are preempted by federal law.³⁰
The Ending Forced Arbitration Act’s reach: Federal courts are split over whether the EFAA, which bars mandatory arbitration of sexual assault and harassment claims, also covers broader gender-based mistreatment that falls outside traditional harassment definitions. Cases involving TikTok and Structure Therapeutics are working through the Second and Ninth Circuits.²⁹

Age discrimination charges have climbed from 11,500 in 2022 to 16,223 in 2024. A January 2025 AARP survey found that 74% of older Americans believe their age is a barrier to finding new work.³¹ The EEOC filed only two ADEA lawsuits in the first half of FY 2025, but private litigation in the area is growing, as the Octapharma and Liberty Mutual verdicts show.

The Federal Contractor DEI Certification Order

On March 26, 2026, the Trump administration issued an executive order requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to certify that they do not engage in “racially discriminatory DEI activities,” defined as disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in hiring, promotions, training, and contracting. Agencies were directed to insert the clause into all contracts of $15,000 or more starting in late April 2026, with existing contracts to be updated by July 2026. Noncompliance can lead to contract termination, suspension, or debarment, and the order makes certification “material” to government contracts, opening the door to potential False Claims Act liability for false statements. The order does not change Title VII’s existing standards for workplace discrimination.³²

1
Hoyer Law Group. Employment Lawsuits Hit Record Highs in 2025
2
EEOC. FY 2027 Agency Performance Plan and FY 2025 Agency Performance Report
3
EEOC. Office of General Counsel Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Report
4
EEOC. EEOC Releases New National Enforcement Plan
5
EEOC. National Enforcement Plan FY 2025-2029
6
EEOC. EEOC Delivers Administration Priorities and President Trump’s Executive Orders
7
EEOC. EEOC Sues New York Times for DEI-Related Race and Sex Discrimination
8
Courthouse News Service. EEOC v. The New York Times Company, Complaint
9
EEOC. EEOC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against NIKE
10
Courthouse News Service. EEOC Application for Nike Subpoena Enforcement
11
EEOC. EEOC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Northwestern Mutual
12
Northwestern Mutual Stipulation. Stipulation Filing, EEOC v. Northwestern Mutual
13
EEOC. EEOC Race Discrimination Cases
14
Ogletree Deakins. Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Standard for Discrimination Claims From Majority Groups
15
EEOC. Class Member Search and Claims Process for Select EEOC Litigation and Settlements
16
EL InfoNet. Federal Verdicts and Settlements
17
Cal Employment Law Update. $103 Million Age Discrimination Verdict Overturned in Los Angeles
18
HR Brew. Inside the SHRM Lawsuit
19
HR Morning. SHRM Discrimination Lawsuit $11.5M Verdict
20
Zurich NA. Employment Practices Litigation Trends for 2026
21
DOJ. Justice Department Files Suit Against University of California for Antisemitic Hostile Work Environment
22
DOJ. United States v. Regents of the University of California, Complaint
23
DOJ. Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota’s Affirmative Action Regime
24
DOJ. Justice Department Sues Minneapolis Public Schools for Racial Discrimination Against Teachers
25
DOJ. Employment Litigation Section News
26
Yahoo News. EEOC Gets Court Win in Challenge to Transgender Bias Enforcement
27
CWC. FY24 Enforcement Stats Show Increase in Filings
28
Gen Re. EEOC Trends and Statistics 2025
29
Bloomberg Law. Top Workplace Discrimination Cases for Lawyers to Track in 2026
30
HR Dive. Supreme Court 2025-2026 Preview Employment Law
31
Federal News Network. Despite Laws Intended to Prevent It, Age Discrimination Abounds in 2025
32
NWLC. The March 26 Executive Order on Federal Contractors and DEI