EEOC Releases New National Enforcement Plan

On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a new National Enforcement Plan (NEP) for 2025-2029, rescinding the Strategic Enforcement Plan already in effect for 2024-2028. It is important for employers to understand the priorities in this new NEP because they demonstrate which claims will attract the EEOC’s attention and which practices the agency is targeting. 

First, the EEOC intends to prioritize intentional discrimination claims over disparate impact claims which focus on neutral policies or practices that unintentionally discriminate. In fact, in accord with an earlier Executive Order declaring the disparate impact theory “unlawful,” the EEOC states it  “will eliminate the use of disparate impact liability theories in investigations ‘to the maximum degree possible,’ . . . and will not commence, develop, or continue to pursue litigation advancing disparate impact claims.” Overall, this is good (but likely temporary) news for employers given the considerable time and expense involved in disparate impact litigation. 

Second, the EEOC has set forth specific types of cases it will prioritize which are tied into the Chair’s priorities of “remedying DEI-related discrimination, protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination, defending women’s rights to single-sex spaces and workers’ rights to express the binary nature of sex, and protecting workers’ religious liberty rights to receive religious accommodations and be free from religious discrimination.” In light of these priorities, the NEP specifically targets the following types of cases or fact patterns for investigation, conciliation, and litigation: 

• cases involving repeated or overt discrimination such as “job advertisements that, on account of a protected characteristic, exclude or discourage certain individuals from applying, or encourage certain individuals to apply”; 
• cases involving “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or similar euphemisms,” programs or practices with preferences for “guest worker visa holders or PERM applicants,” quotas or “aspirational goals” which “encourage or incentivize race- and sex-based decision making,” “rubrics or other candidate evaluation methods that consider protected characteristics,” and “executive or other employee compensation or bonuses tied to employee race- or sex-based demographic goals or other diversity goals”; 
• cases involving the application or scope of recent Supreme Court decisions or presenting unresolved issues of statutory interpretation, including the analysis of voluntary affirmative action programs, employers’ obligation to reasonably accommodate religious practices, the scope of liability under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and clarifying the scope of Bostock v. Clayton County with respect to “employees’ right to single-sex intimate spaces and the right to express the binary nature of sex”; and 
• cases protecting vulnerable workers, such as teens, persons with limited literacy or education, low wage earners, survivors of sexual assault, and those with developmental or intellectual disabilities. 

We encourage employers to review the EEOC’s National Enforcement Plan as it specifically identifies practices the agency now believes are unlawful. The difference between the EEOC under the Biden administration and the EEOC under the Trump administration is striking. It is important that employers are on notice of these significant policy changes which may require modifications to employment practices. 

KZA attorneys have been practicing before the EEOC for decades. If you have questions about the NEP or need assistance with an EEOC matter, please contact us. 

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.