On September 14, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Accenture agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that its hiring, promotion, and workplace-development practices discriminated on the basis of race or sex. The settlement resolves allegations that Accenture Federal Services (AFS) falsely certified compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements applicable to government contractors. It comes just weeks after the DOJ’s settlement with Deloitte and follows the government’s April settlement with IBM over similar allegations. According to the settlement agreement, Accenture denied the government’s allegations without admitting liability.
The Accenture settlement is the latest example of the Trump Administration’s effort to use the False Claims Act (FCA) to challenge what it characterizes as unlawful DEI-related employment practices by federal contractors, an approach advanced through the DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative launched in 2025. Together with the two earlier FCA settlements involving major federal contractors accused of similar conduct, the resolution suggests a broader enforcement trend may be emerging, one that could have significant implications for companies, their directors and officers, and D&O insurers.
A copy of the DOJ settlement with Accenture can be found here.
Accenture Enforcement Action
The government’s allegations centered on employment and workforce practices at AFS, a federal contractor. According to the settlement agreement, the government alleged that the company maintained internal demographic objectives and employment practices that considered race or sex in hiring, promotion, and leadership-development decisions. At the same time, AFS allegedly certified compliance with the federal anti-discrimination requirements incorporated into its government contracts.
The government further alleged that the company tracked workforce demographics against internal goals and used various hiring, promotion, mentoring, and leadership-development programs to advance those objectives. Accenture denied the allegations but agreed to pay $25 million, including more than $11.6 million characterized as restitution, to resolve the matter.
Discussion
Taken together, the IBM, Deloitte, and Accenture settlements suggest a pattern in which DOJ investigations into alleged DEI-related violations are culminating in negotiated resolutions with the government rather than contested litigation.
It should also be noted that the enforcement trend is not confined to the federal government. On September 17, 2026, Law360 reported that Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier had announced a settlement with Starbucks Corp. resolving allegations that the company’s DEI initiatives involved unlawful race- and sex-based quotas. Under the agreement, Starbucks agreed to refrain from using race- or sex-based hiring and promotion goals, provide annual compliance certifications for four years, and pay $1 million to reimburse the state for litigation costs, while denying any wrongdoing.
From a D&O liability perspective, these settlements may prove to be the beginning, rather than the end, of a company’s exposure. Once the DOJ or a company publicly discloses a governmental investigation or settlement, shareholders and plaintiffs’ attorneys may begin examining whether the company’s disclosures adequately described the underlying practices and attendant risks.
The Accenture settlement may highlight this concern. Although the company resolved the government’s civil claims, the agreement expressly preserves a variety of other governmental remedies, including potential EEOC proceedings, and specifically does not release potential liability of individuals. Government allegations concerning workplace decision-making may also encourage current or former employees and applicants to pursue discrimination-related claims based on the same underlying conduct. As a result, a company that resolves FCA allegations may remain exposed to scrutiny and potential litigation after the settlement itself is announced.
Resolving the government’s claims may not end a company’s exposure; it may instead serve as a catalyst for subsequent employment practices liability (EPL) and shareholder litigation. As The D&O Diary recently noted in discussing the derivative lawsuit against Uber, underlying compliance problems often give rise to follow-on shareholder litigation alleging that directors and officers failed to oversee the challenged conduct. Employment-practices investigations and DOJ settlements can follow a similar path. Once the underlying allegations become public, shareholders may seek books-and-records demands relating to board oversight, pursue derivative claims alleging oversight failures, or, in some circumstances, challenge the adequacy of the company’s disclosures concerning workforce practices, compliance controls, and related risks.
In addition, it is important to recognize that the recent DOJ settlements challenge corporate DEI practices that were widely promoted and considered standard under prior administrations. The conduct periods identified in the government’s settlements with IBM, Deloitte, and Accenture stretch back years before the current Administration launched its anti-DEI enforcement agenda. As a result, these cases illustrate how shifts in political and regulatory priorities can transform practices that were once broadly accepted in the marketplace into significant enforcement risks. They also raise the possibility that future administrations could once again alter enforcement priorities, creating an ongoing challenge for boards and management teams seeking to maintain compliance amid an evolving regulatory landscape.
This shifting enforcement landscape has important implications for D&O underwriters. As employment practices and workforce initiatives become subjects of regulatory scrutiny, matters that historically might have been viewed primarily as human resources issues may now present liability concerns. The recent DOJ settlements suggest that workforce-related practices and compliance oversight may become increasingly important considerations in the underwriting process, particularly for companies with significant government-contracting operations.
Finally, the recent FCA settlements may influence how companies currently facing investigations respond to government scrutiny. Corporate boards and their advisors are undoubtedly watching the outcomes of these enforcement actions closely. If negotiated resolutions continue to accumulate, companies facing similar investigations may increasingly conclude that settlement is a more practical alternative than protracted litigation. The legal fees, business disruption, uncertainty, and reputational consequences associated with defending these matters can be substantial. At the same time, each additional settlement may strengthen the government’s leverage in future negotiations by reinforcing an emerging pattern of resolution.
Whether the Accenture settlement ultimately proves to be an isolated development or part of a broader trend remains to be seen. Viewed alongside the earlier settlements involving other major federal contractors, however, it signals that the government’s use of the FCA to challenge DEI-related employment practices is becoming an increasingly established tool. The implications for corporate governance, underwriting, EPL, and D&O risk could be significant.