EEOC Chair Changes Focus

The new Acting Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Andrea R. Lucas, is taking a different approach in several important enforcement areas. These policy shifts may have an impact on Nevada employers. 

Upon her appointment in January 2025, EEOC Acting Chair Lucas expressed an intention to restore “evenhanded enforcement of employment civil rights laws for all Americans,” explaining that she will “dispel the notion that only the ‘right sort of’ charging party is welcome through our doors.” Her priorities “will include rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination; protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination; defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single‑sex spaces at work; protecting workers from religious bias and harassment, including antisemitism; and remedying other areas of recent under-enforcement.”

On February 19, 2025, Lucas declared an intention to focus upon employers “that illegally prefer non-American workers” in favor of “illegal aliens, migrant workers, and visa holders or other legal immigrants.” She explained her position that a preference for non-American workers constitutes national origin discrimination against Americans, and stated: “The EEOC will help deter illegal migration and reduce the abuse of legal immigration programs by increasing enforcement of employment antidiscrimination laws against employers that illegally prefer non-American workers, as well as against staffing agencies and other agents that unlawfully comply with client companies’ illegal preferences against American workers.”

So how will these enforcement changes impact Nevada employers? 

First, you may see charges and lawsuits alleging gender identity/expression discrimination coming from the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) and state court instead of their federal counterparts. Nevada law expressly protects employees from discrimination because of actual or perceived gender identity or expression, as well as sexual orientation. While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that federal law (Title VII) also bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, there is a dispute about the scope of this ruling. The EEOC will likely continue to accept charges of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression discrimination, but you can safely assume that it will not aggressively pursue or file litigation to prosecute these cases. For this reason, plaintiffs and charging parties may prefer the state agency and state courts. 

Second, you may see an increase in state and federal charges alleging antisemitism. Discrimination against individuals who are members of the Jewish faith or are from Israel is already prohibited by federal and Nevada law as, respectively, religious discrimination and national origin discrimination. The EEOC has recently declared an intention to “do a better job” protecting employees from religious discrimination, and the Nevada Legislature is also looking at bills related to beefing up protections against antisemitism. 

Third, given the EEOC’s intention to “rigorously enforce the law to protect American workers from national origin discrimination,” you may see an increased interest in your hiring and promotion practices. If your workforce is dominated by immigrants, migrants, and/or visa holders, you should consult with counsel about whether your business is at risk for a national origin discrimination claim and steps you can take to mitigate that risk. 

KZA’s attorneys can help you prepare for and address these policy changes. If you have a pending EEOC or NERC matter, please contact a KZA attorney. 

KZA Employer Report articles are for general information only; they are not intended and should not be construed to be legal advice. Reading or replying to such articles does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In addition, because the subject matters and applicable laws discussed in Employer Report articles are often in a state of change and not always applicable to every type of business entity or organization, readers should consult with counsel before making decisions based on the same.