What the New EEOC National Enforcement Plan Means for Workers

by Matthew P. Suzor and Riya Mittle

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a National Enforcement Plan in June 2026 which explains the agency’s new priorities and what it has deprioritized, and, critically, states that Title VII and related employment statutes remain unchanged despite shifts in agency emphasis.  The practical takeaway is that workers whose claims fall outside the new priorities, particularly disparate impact claims, may need to pursue state agency remedies or through private counsel from law firms.

What the National Enforcement Plan Is and How It Differs from the Strategic Enforcement Plan

The EEOC National Enforcement Plan applies to fiscal years 2025 through 2029, and guides the Agency’s outreach, public education, technical assistance, investigations, settlement efforts, litigation, and participation in cases brought by others.  The EEOC receives tens of thousands of charges each year, making it difficult to devote equal resources to each matter.  This plan identifies the categories in which the Agency believes its involvement can have the largest impact.

The plan the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for fiscal years 2024 through 2028.  Although both Plans were designed to direct limited agency resources, the previous plan broadly emphasized systemic discrimination, underserved communities, and developing issues.  The new National Enforcement Plan instead emphasizes intentional discrimination, nationwide coordination, administration priorities, and cases with broader legal significance.  Further, it also creates a more centralized national approach.

Types of cases the EEOC Will Now Prioritize

1. Intentional Discrimination: The EEOC will prioritize disparate treatment (conduct motivated by an individual’s protected characteristic). Priority cases may involve “repeated or overt discrimination, including facially discriminatory policies, practices, and programs.”
2. Systemic Harassment: This generally involves a widespread pattern, recurring conduct, or an organizational practice affecting multiple employees “such as cases alleging patterns of discrimination in hiring, lay-offs, job mobility, fringe benefits and/or pay.”
3. Retaliation for Participating in EEOC Proceedings: The plan prioritizes cases involving the “integrity or effectiveness of the Commission’s enforcement process” including retaliation.
4. Protection of Vulnerable Workers: The plan defines vulnerable workers as “teenage workers, persons with limited literacy or education, individuals employed in low wage jobs, survivors of sexual assault, and workers with developmental or intellectual disabilities.”

How the Plan Treats Workplace Discrimination as Enforcement Priority

The plan identifies several workplace subjects for increased enforcement attention.

1. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) Programs: The EEOC will prioritize claims that DEI programs intentionally discriminate based on race or sex. The plan focuses on whether protected characteristics actually influenced an employment decision, not simply whether an employer uses a label.
2. Religious Accommodation: Under Title VII, employers have an obligation to “reasonably accommodate” religious practices. Moreover, workers should not face discrimination, harassment, or retaliation based on religion.
3. National Origin Discrimination: The plan also works to protect “American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination[.]” Job advertisements, staffing decisions, or employment policies that intentionally favor or exclude applicants based on national origin may therefore receive heightened scrutiny.

What the Move Away from Disparate Impact Means in Practice for Workers

One of the Plan’s most significant changes is its move away from disparate impact theories of liability.   The EEOC “will not commence, develop, or continue to pursue litigation advancing disparate impact claims.”  This does not erase disparate impact from Title VII or automatically defeat a worker’s claim.  These cases may require extensive data, expert analysis, and private counsel to demonstrate that a particular employment practice causing disparity was not justified by business necessity.

Remaining Options for Employee Claims Outside Stated Priorities

Employees may file with a state or local Fair Employment Practices Agency (“FEPA”).  These FEPAs can enforce laws that cover additional protected characteristics, use different legal standards, or provide different remedies.  Charges filed with a participating state agency may be dual filed with the EEOC.

Workers may pursue private litigation after satisfying the applicable administrative requirements.  Under Title VII, employees generally must first file an EEOC charge and obtain a Notice of Right to Sue.  Once that notice is issued, the employee has 90 days to file in court.

The National Enforcement Plan therefore makes early evaluation especially important.  Workers should consider not only whether discrimination occurred, but also which federal, state, and local laws apply, what filing deadlines govern, and whether private litigation is needed.

Miller Shah LLP represents employees nationwide in discrimination, harassment, and retaliation matters.