Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

EEOC’s New National Enforcement Plan Signals Shift Toward Intentional Discrimination and DEI Enforcement

By Lindsay Burke, Evan Parness, Carolyn Rashby & Alex Thomson on June 8, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Boss and employee or exclusion of a person because of their appearance or ethnicity?
Markus Spiske, Unsplash

On June 4, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) approved its National Enforcement Plan (“NEP”) for FY2025 – FY2029, rescinding and replacing the agency’s FY2024 – FY2028 Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) before that plan’s scheduled endpoint. The NEP identifies and focuses the agency’s attention and resources on specific substantive categories of enforcement priorities including (1) “remedying DEI-related race and sex discrimination”; (2) “protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination”; (3) “defending women’s rights to single-sex spaces at work and workers’ rights to express the binary nature of sex”; and (4) “protecting workers’ religious liberty rights to receive religious accommodations and be free from religious discrimination, harassment, and related retaliation,” among others.

The NEP marks a significant shift in the agency’s enforcement priorities from those identified in the SEP.  Most notably, the NEP prioritizes intentional discrimination, identifies certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”)-related practices as potential sources of unlawful race or sex discrimination, limits the agency’s use of disparate-impact theories (consistent with Executive Order 14281 (“Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy”), which directed federal agencies to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability theories in investigations “to the maximum degree possible,”), and identifies recent Supreme Court precedent—including Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Students for Fair Admissions, United Steelworkers v. Weber, Johnson v. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, Groff v. DeJoy, and Bostock v. Clayton County—as a focus for future enforcement and litigation. By contrast, the SEP had broadly prioritized eliminating recruitment and hiring barriers, protecting vulnerable and underserved workers (such as immigrant and migrant workers, workers with mental-health-related disabilities, and LGBTQI+ individuals, among others), advancing equal pay, and responding to discrimination, bias, or hate arising from local, national, or global events.

Consistent with the EEOC’s previously issued “technical assistance” documents titled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work” and “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work” (previously discussed here), the NEP identifies certain policies, programs, or practices “labeled or framed as ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’” as potential sources of intentional discrimination.  These include:

  • Race- or sex-based quotas, including practices labeled as “aspirational goals” that function as proxies for quotas or encourage race- or sex-based decision-making in interviewing, hiring, staffing a particular project/client teams, layoffs, promotions, or other employment actions;
  • Limiting access to training, internships, fellowships, mentorship, sponsorship, apprenticeship programs, employer-sponsored groups or events, bonuses, fringe benefits, perks, or other terms and conditions of employment based on race or sex;
  • Diverse slate policies, diverse hiring panel policies, diversity statements, or candidate evaluation rubrics that consider protected characteristics;
  • Sharing employee race or sex data with managers or other non-HR personnel; and
  • Compensation or bonuses tied to demographic goals or other diversity goals.

The NEP also identifies as enforcement priorities:

  • Job advertisements that exclude, discourage, or encourage applicants based on protected characteristics (including race, sex, and national origin);
  • Staffing or fellowship programs that exclude individuals from employment because of protected characteristics; and
  • Religious accommodation, religious liberty, and constitutional and statutory limitations on liability for religious organizations and religious employers.

In light of these announced EEOC enforcement priorities, employers should ensure they are continuing best practices to mitigate risk and ensure compliance. If you have questions about programs and practices that may be implicated by the EEOC’s new technical assistance, please contact members of Covington’s employment practice group.

Photo of Lindsay Burke Lindsay Burke

Lindsay Burke co-chairs the firm’s Employment Practice Group and regularly advises U.S., international, and multinational employers on employee management and culture issues and international HR compliance. She is a key member of the firm’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility practice, working together with…

Lindsay Burke co-chairs the firm’s Employment Practice Group and regularly advises U.S., international, and multinational employers on employee management and culture issues and international HR compliance. She is a key member of the firm’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility practice, working together with white collar colleagues to conduct culture assessments, internal investigations of executive misconduct, and civil rights and racial equity audits and assessments. Lindsay has been at the forefront of the changing workplace issues impacting employers in the U.S. in the last decade, including #MeToo, Covid-19, and the renewed focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion. She frequently advises employers in relation to their processes and procedures for investigating complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and trains executive teams and board members on culture risk and the lawful implementation of DEI programs.

Lindsay also guides employers through the process of hiring and terminating employees and managing their performance, including the drafting and review of employment agreements, restrictive covenant agreements, separation agreements, performance plans, and key employee policies and handbooks. She provides practical advice against the backdrop of the web of state and federal employment laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the False Claims Act, with the objective of minimizing the risk of employee litigation. When litigation looms, Lindsay relies on her experience as an employment litigator to offer employers strategic advice and assistance in responding to demand letters and agency charges.

Lindsay works frequently with the firm’s privacy, employee benefits and executive compensation, corporate, government contracts, and cybersecurity practice groups to ensure that all potential employment issues are addressed in matters handled by these groups. She also regularly provides U.S. employment law training, support, and assistance to start-ups, non-profits, and foreign parent companies opening affiliates in the U.S.

Read more about Lindsay BurkeEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Evan Parness Evan Parness

Evan Parness, vice chair of the firm’s Employment Practice Group, has a full-service labor and employment practice that includes litigating cutting-edge issues at the trial and appellate levels, negotiating employment aspects of complex M&A deals and other business transactions, and counseling global employers…

Evan Parness, vice chair of the firm’s Employment Practice Group, has a full-service labor and employment practice that includes litigating cutting-edge issues at the trial and appellate levels, negotiating employment aspects of complex M&A deals and other business transactions, and counseling global employers on compliance with national, state, and local employment laws and regulations.

Evan represents employers and senior executives in non-compete, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, ERISA, and business tort litigation in state and federal courts, administrative agencies, and alternative dispute resolution bodies. He has secured significant trial and appellate victories for clients, including complete dismissals of discrimination and retaliation lawsuits, successful verdicts following trial, and injunctive relief on behalf of clients enforcing restrictive covenants.

Evan also counsels established and emerging companies on compliance with federal, state, and local employment laws and regulations, and litigation avoidance measures in connection with all aspects of workplace employment issues. He conducts sensitive internal investigations of alleged discrimination and harassment, and assists employers in shaping workplace policies to comply with law and promote a productive working environment.

Evan advises leading companies on the labor and employment aspects of significant business transactions and acquisitions. He negotiates employment-related provisions in business transaction documents and oversees due diligence of a potential target’s employment practices. He also counsels clients on executive employment and restrictive covenants agreements.

Chambers USA notes “Evan is an exceptional and talented lawyer. He possesses a deep understanding of the law and an unwavering commitment to his clients. He has a keen eye for detail and can dissect complex legal issues with remarkable efficiency. His thorough and methodical approach to each case ensures that no stone is left unturned, providing his clients with the best possible legal representation.”

The Legal 500 US notes that clients have commented that “Evan Parness is an amazing attorney. Always attentive and will take instructions outside of business hours, he is always there when we need him and looks for the best outcome for clients.”

Read more about Evan ParnessEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Carolyn Rashby Carolyn Rashby

Carolyn Rashby provides business-focused advice and counsel to companies navigating the constantly evolving and overlapping maze of federal, state, and local employment requirements. Carolyn’s approach is preventive, while recognizing the need to set clients up for the best possible defense should disputes arise.…

Carolyn Rashby provides business-focused advice and counsel to companies navigating the constantly evolving and overlapping maze of federal, state, and local employment requirements. Carolyn’s approach is preventive, while recognizing the need to set clients up for the best possible defense should disputes arise.

As a senior member of Covington’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility Practice Group, Carolyn has co-led significant investigations into workplace culture, DEI issues, and reports of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment.

As an employment lawyer with over two decades of experience, Carolyn focuses on a wide range of compliance and regulatory matters for employers, including:

Conducting audits regarding employee classification and pay equity
Advising on employment issues arising in corporate transactions
Strategic counseling on a wide range of issues including discrimination and harassment, wages and hours, worker classification, workplace accommodations and leave management, performance management and termination decisions, workplace violence, employment agreements, trade secrets, restrictive covenants, employee handbooks, and personnel policies
Drafting employment contracts and offer letters, separation agreements, NDAs, and other employment agreements
Advising on employee privacy matters, including under the California Consumer Privacy Act
Providing guidance on use of AI in the workplace and development of related policies
Leading anti-harassment and other workplace-related trainings, for employees, executives, and boards

Carolyn also works frequently with the firm’s white collar, privacy, employee benefits and executive compensation, corporate, government contracts, and cybersecurity practice groups to ensure that all potential employment issues are addressed in matters handled by these groups.

Read more about Carolyn RashbyEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Alex Thomson Alex Thomson

Alex Thomson is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and is a member of the White Collar Defense and Investigations and Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility Practice Groups. He has extensive experience conducting civil rights and racial equity assessments for leading…

Alex Thomson is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and is a member of the White Collar Defense and Investigations and Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility Practice Groups. He has extensive experience conducting civil rights and racial equity assessments for leading corporations, investigating workplace cultural issues including reports of misconduct, harassment, and discrimination, and advising clients on the lawful design and implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion processes and practices.

Alex also advises clients responding to high-profile investigations before the Department of Justice that entail significant legal and reputational risks. His practice focuses on white collar criminal defense and government and internal investigations.

Alex serves on the Board of Directors for the Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), the leading global Jewish humanitarian organization. Prior to joining Covington, Alex served as a law clerk to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary and was a fundraiser for the Jewish Federation of Boston. He also has served on national finance committees for two presidential campaigns.

Read more about Alex ThomsonEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Inside Jobs
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo