Compliance Stuff

Seyfarth Synopsis: Late last week, the EEOC identified ten new rulemaking items that could significantly affect employer compliance obligations. The agenda entries include plans to eliminate EEO reporting requirements, rescind the UGESP, revisit regulations implementing the PWFA, and withdraw several longstanding interpretive guidance documents. While existing requirements remain in effect pending further action, the agenda provides a clear roadmap of the Commission's planned activities. While most of the country was preparing for the Independence Day holiday weekend, the EEOC identified ten new rulemaking initiatives in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The initiatives suggest a broad review of agency-created compliance requirements, reporting obligations, recordkeeping frameworks, and interpretive guidance that are consistent with the themes reflected in the EEOC’s recently issued National Enforcement Plan (NEP), as previously summarized here . Th...

Takeaways The DOJ analysis bolsters EEOC’s shift away from disparate impact liability theories of employment discrimination.  The DOJ memo proposes stricter limits on disparate impact claims. Related links DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Memo   EEOC Releases New National Enforcement Plan   Does Employer Disparate Impact Liability Still Exist? The Latest EO Pushes to Eliminate It EEOC to Halt Investigations into Disparate Impact Claims Article On June 9, 2026, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel released a memorandum opinion finding the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) existing guidelines on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s disparate impact provisions to be unconstitutional. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas had requested that the DOJ review the EEOC’s interpretative rules and guidance documents to advise whether the Title VII disparate impact provisions were constitutional as currently interpreted and applied. The memo’s conclusions align with ...

California employers are caught between two legal systems that are moving in opposite directions.   The Trump administration has reshaped U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforcement priorities, dialing back protections for transgender employees; revoking guidance on harassment; and asserting that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives may violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act . California has moved in the opposite direction over the past several years, codifying and actively enforcing protections under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and related regulations that expressly guarantee transgender employees the right to access restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identity and the right to be addressed by names and pronouns corresponding to their gender identity or expression.  Title VII sets a floor, not a ceiling. So, California employers should remain diligent to meet the requirements of state and federal law, even...

On January 22, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2–1 to rescind its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” (guidance) , which was approved in 2024. [1]  At issue in the guidance was its definition of sex-based harassment under Title VII, which included “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.” [2] The rescission of this guidance is consistent with EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas’s vocal opposition to it dating back to 2024. She dissented from the guidance when it was first issued, criticizing the bathroom-access and pronoun portions based on her belief that they “eliminate single-sex workplace facilities” and “impinge on women’s (and indeed, all employees’) rights to freedom of speech and belief.” [3]  After President Donald Trump appoi...

  E mployer-sponsored networking events and leadership programs are often created to support professional development and employee engagement . But when access to those opportunities is limited based on a protected characteristic, the program itself can become the basis for a Title VII claim. That issue is at the center of the EEOC’s recent lawsuit against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc. In its complaint filed February 17, 2026, t he agency alleges the company violated Title VII by excluding male employees from an employer-sponsored trip and networking event and by providing female attendees with workplace and economic benefits not offered to male employees . [1] According to the complaint, Coca-Cola Northeast held the event at Mohegan Sun and Casino in Connecticut on September 10 and 11, 2024. [2]  The EEOC alleges the company privately invited female employees, did not invite male employees, and gave attendees several associated benefits. Those alleged benefits included...