Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2026: EEOC Trends, Enforcement Shifts, and What Employers Should Do Now

Transcript

Announcer: Welcome to the Ogletree Deakins podcast, where we provide listeners with brief discussions about important workplace legal issues. Our podcasts are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. You can subscribe through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating this podcast, so we can get your feedback and improve our programs. Please enjoy the podcast.

James Paul: Everybody, we are glad to join you. We are fresh back from our Workplace Strategies conference in Austin, Texas, Workplace Strategies 2026. Aimee Parsons and Carolyn Russell and I, my name is James Paul, we had a great panel discussion talking about EEOC cases, trends, and priorities for this year. When we were at the Workplace Strategies, we just heard the keynote presentation by Chairperson Andrea Lucas with the EEOC, and she gave us a lot of insight into a lot of her priorities and initiatives that she’s launched since being named chair and even before during the first year of President Trump’s administration.

So, why don’t we start off, Aimee? You want to talk about some of the things that have happened over the last year as far as executive orders and opinions coming out from the EEOC during this new administration?

Aimee Parsons: Sure, yes. The new administration didn’t waste any time, and they quickly issued several executive orders. These are really focused on eliminating the Biden era race and equality initiatives. So, we see executive orders that are terminating DEI mandates in federal government. We see an executive order that is defining sex as an immutable biological classification distinct from gender identity. So, we know that the federal government now is recognizing only two biological sexes. We see executive orders that are aimed at combating antisemitism and anti-Christian bias. In general, Chair Lucas feels strongly that the EEOC is an executive agency following federal policy. So, these executive orders signal the enforcement priorities that the EEOC is working on now and will continue to work on in the coming months and years.

James Paul: Carolyn, you want to tell us what happened with the harassment guidance that the EEOC had issued during the Biden administration?

Carolyn Russell: Yes, Jim. So, in rescinding the 2024 harassment guidance, the EEOC shifted the focus to a protection mode toward women in the workplace and right to safe spaces in the workplace. So, the question comes up, what about harassment based on sexual orientation, transgender status, and gender identity? While the EEOC emphasized in the guidance that all of these federal anti-harassment laws are still valid and fully enforceable, the focus is no longer on sexual orientation, transgender status, and gender identity, shifting in many respects to religious protection.

Aimee Parsons: I think the guidance also directed federal agencies to eliminate or reduce the use of disparate impact theory, was part of what has happened as a result of the executive orders and also the rescission of the 2024 harassment guidance.

James Paul: What I found very interesting is, and maybe the EEOC has done this before in its past, but, Aimee, it seems like the EEOC is trying to solicit charges from certain groups including, I believe, white men to file charges of discrimination if they believe that they’ve been somehow discriminated in the workplace. How did Chair Lucas explain the EEOC’s focus on solicitation of charges from certain groups?

Aimee Parsons: Well, absolutely. She said that very directly. I think it was back in November of 2025. Chair Lucas is concerned that white men have not been aware that they too have rights under Title VII and that all of us have protected categories. So, her concern is that in spite of the fact that the law has always protected all races and all genders, all sexes, Chair Lucas is particularly focused on lack of charges and lack of resolutions on behalf of white men in the past decades. She’s focused on soliciting white males to file charges.

As Carolyn mentioned, she’s focused on protecting spaces for women. This also flowed out of one of the executive orders and relates to the bathroom policies that were revoked in the harassment guidance from 2024. She’s very concerned about the rights of women to be free from instances of people using the bathroom that correspond with their gender identity because Chair Lucas views that as a potential infringement on religious rights, to the extent that someone is part of a religious group that has a problem with individuals who are transgender using the bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity. So her focus is not only on soliciting white males, it is also focused on a protection of Christian beliefs.

James Paul: How does that dovetail specifically for both of you? I’m curious how you see the unlawful DEI discussion emanating from the EEOC and how the EEOC is approaching DE&I initiatives that employers have utilized leading up to the last couple of years.

Carolyn Russell: Jim, it was really interesting to hear Chair Lucas discuss this because she views unlawful DEI as it’s self-discriminatory, and she does it on a couple levels. She does it because there’s an idea inherent in her view that if you have affinity groups that are open only to people of a specific race or gender, that excludes other folks, and is it self-discriminatory? She says if you substitute the name of the group with maybe a majority group, if that strikes you as wrong or offensive, there’s something wrong with the group as a whole. And the second layer, the second part of her analysis hinges on the idea that certain groups need protection, certain groups need a leg up or need special attention, and that signals to her that perhaps we have a bias toward their capability.

James Paul: On that note, there’s a whole another stream, which I’ll kind of mention, the EEOC is very concerned about anti-American bias in the workplace as well as anti-Christian bias. I’ll start with the anti-American bias initiative. It’s interesting because yes, national origin is protected across the board, but I’m not sure, and we’re going to have to play this out or see how that is actually defined as far as American national origin, how many generations that requires or goes backwards to address. But I’m curious, both you, Aimee and Carolyn, how you view what the EEOC is doing with regard to rooting out or investigating or enforcing anti-American bias.

Carolyn Russell: Well, I think, Jim, that the EEOC wants to make sure that people who may not feel like they can check a box on a charge because they are, in their mind, simply American, that they are provided the same terms and conditions in the workplace as someone who can check one of those boxes. In her talk, Chair Lucas did refer to American as a national origin, and I think we were all wondering exactly what that would mean in the workplace. Because many workplaces, while people may identify with different national origins, everyone believes that they’re American. So, it could be an attempt to fold everyone into the protections of the EEOC.

James Paul: Yeah. On that note, there also is this related or similar kind of philosophy or issue with regard to anti-Christian bias. The EEOC has made very clear, both with regard to federal workers, but then extended into that, it is concerned to the extent that other religions, non-Christian religions, are given space, given time, given support to discuss or to celebrate religious holidays, for instance, or to have certain events stemming from different religious traditions or celebrations. So, it is really stepped up its inquiry into what all is being discussed from a religious standpoint and to make sure that Christian employees have kind of equal time. I analogize it to, during a campaign, all the candidates are supposed to have equal time to give political speeches or to campaign. So, on that front, the EEOC seems to want to, I guess, either have zero discussion or celebration of traditions or religions in the workplace or to make sure that everybody has equal time and equal celebration. But curious, Carolyn and Aimee, what your takeaway on the anti-Christian religion front was?

Aimee Parsons: Well, I mean, we know that the EEOC’s position is that any sort of preferential treatment to any group is going to be categorized as unlawful DEI. So, to the extent that we’re allowing one religious group to have a celebration in the workplace, unless we’re opening that up to all religious groups, it looks like we’re giving preferential treatment to that one group. So, any sort of mentoring, training that is targeted at younger employees or employees of a certain race or national origin, anything that looks like one group is getting preferential treatment is going to constitute unlawful DEI.

James Paul: Yeah. Carolyn, what about a reverse? For those of us who’ve practiced and been in this space for years or decades, we’ve come to use and courts have come to use the term reverse discrimination claims. What is the new status or the new situation with regard to reverse race and gender claims or lawsuits?

Carolyn Russell: Yeah, thanks, Jim. Reverse is really shorthand for a member of the majority claiming discrimination or harassment from someone in the minority. We’re really seeing just abolishment of the reverse terminology because there used to be a higher evidentiary standard that a member of the majority would need to show in order to establish discrimination. The Supreme Court in 2025, in the Ames case, the full court issued this opinion, and the opinion held that Title VII does not require members of the majority to meet a higher evidentiary standard compared to members of the minority, saying discrimination is discrimination no matter who the victim is. This level setting really did away with the term reverse race and gender discrimination or lawsuits because anyone who files one of these lawsuits has to meet the same burden now per the Ames case.

James Paul: Yeah. I get the concept and I understand that everybody’s protected, there should be no discrimination, but this really is using different terminology and signaling different approaches that this current administration and the current EEOC is taking. Another one, which really isn’t a change, but certainly, it continues to be a priority for the EEOC, is with regard to reasonable accommodation for disabilities or potentially even for religious beliefs in the form of either hybrid work or remote work opportunities. I’m curious, for either of you, have you seen these issues pop up with regard to accommodating usually medical conditions, but I’ve also seen it in the religious accommodation space, but accommodating things in the form of allowing employees to work remotely?

Carolyn Russell: I think that’s right, Jim. We saw a lot of remote work, of course, during the pandemic. Following the pandemic, we saw a lot of employees who liked the remote work and wanted to find ways to stay working remotely. Many of them requested remote work or requested to continue to work remotely as a reasonable accommodation for mental health reasons or for religious reasons, and really used that interactive process vehicle as a way to maintain the work environment that existed during the pandemic. To the point of some of our discussions, it was for childcare reasons, it was because they had acquired pets during the pandemic, and established a very different way that work looked and worked for them. They wanted to continue that, and many times their families needed to continue it because of pressure for childcare and elder care and other priorities that require being at home.

James Paul: So, what do we expect? I mean, Aimee, what are we expecting employers to see over the next year or so, or maybe even the next two and a half years left in this current Trump administration?

Aimee Parsons: I think employers can expect or employers are going to need to really consider what their risk tolerance is as we move forward in this current administration. Multi-state employers operate in jurisdictions that provide greater protections than that which the EEOC is currently saying individuals are entitled to. So, it’s going to be important for employers to consider how they want to flex or not flex or look at their policies in relation to these states that do offer greater protection and do still provide protections for transgender employees and do still recognize that individuals can use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identities. So, I think it’s going to be really important for employers to really lean into the law and observe what is happening in these jurisdictions that provide greater protections than what the EEOC provides.

Carolyn Russell: Aimee, to your point, I think that there is a willingness on the part of states to try to fill in the gap that is left by some of the EEOC action. And we are seeing that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, similar to the third law of motion, because if the EEOC shifts a focus and goes in one direction, many states or blue states are acting to reinforce the protections. It leaves employers in a bit of a questioning mode as to who to follow.

James Paul: Yeah. One real practical concern that I’m seeing, and I hope all of the employers out there realize is, regardless of whether you’re in a red state or a blue state, you may have and probably have work sites and employees in many states, if not all states. So, it really is a tightrope to figure out what you want your corporate culture and mission and kind of personality to be, and how do you navigate that given the fact that you have employees potentially and probably in many geographic areas across the country.

What I’m cautioning employers against is making immediate and drastic changes to corporate culture, mission statements, policies, procedures, because you may not want to reel those back or take 180-degree turn only to be faced with doing the same thing three years from now or two and a half years from now for the next presidential administration. So be careful of the whole boomeranging back and forth or seesaw effect of changing policies and culture too drastically or too many times. I think that that does a disservice and causes more harm than leaving your trajectory of corporate culture and mission on track to where you want it to be. Every organization is different and should be different and should steer the ship in the direction that suits that organization best.

Carolyn Russell: I think also that employers need to take requests from employees very seriously when they pertain to religious holidays or recognition or anything that could be perceived as favoring one group over another.

James Paul: Yeah. It’s not just equal opportunity for religious…what I’m seeing a lot, and I’m dealing with probably 10 times as many religious accommodation requests currently than I have in the last 20 years, but they’re really objections to…sometimes there are requests for something extra, some type of accommodation or exemption from a rule, but a lot of times they’re objections to things that the employer is doing or allowing other groups. So, allowing employees to choose their preferred personal pronouns or use different restrooms than might otherwise be based on their biological birth, gender. Pride Month initiatives or celebrations, for instance, may run afoul of someone’s religious beliefs. So, I’m seeing a lot of objections to that, and we have to really figure out, is that really asking for an accommodation or is that just posing an objection, and how do we handle and navigate that?

I think we’re still figuring this out. It’s going to have to work its way through the EEOC and through the court system to figure out how we can all basically get along with each other at work and not bring politics and religion into it. I mean, we all were taught not to talk about religion and politics at work or at the Thanksgiving dinner table with family and extended family, but unfortunately, it’s really hard to separate politics and beliefs and religion these days from the daily work interactions of employees. So, we’re kind of in new territory, and the EEOC is definitely monitoring this and fashioning its remedy, its enforcement initiatives around that.
Great. Well, we really enjoyed our panel at the Workplace Strategies 2026 in Austin, Texas. For those of you that were there, we were lucky enough and glad to see you. For those that missed it, hopefully this gave you a little bit of a sense of one of the panel discussions that we had during the conference. So, with that, we’re signing off, and we’ll talk to you next time about all kinds of fun things that are happening in the workplace.

Search This Blog

Compliance Stuff

Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2026: EEOC Trends, Enforcement Shifts, and What Employers Should Do Now

Transcript

Subscribe Today!