June 29, 2026 • News

EEOC Releases New National Enforcement Plan (NEP)

On June 4, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released a new National Enforcement Plan (NEP) for fiscal years 2025-2029. The NEP reaffirms the agency’s established three-pronged approach to eliminating discrimination in the workplace through: 

• prevention through education and outreach; 
• voluntary resolution of disputes, including through alternative dispute resolution, pre-determination settlements, and conciliation agreements; and 
• enforcement through litigation

However, the NEP rescinds the strategic plan approved by the Biden administration for fiscal years 2024-2028 and re-defines the agency’s priority areas as follows:

• Potential violations of anti-discrimination employment laws, including:
  • Cases involving “facially discriminatory policies, practices, and programs,” such as:
    • Job advertisements that exclude or discourage certain individuals from applying, by encouraging certain individuals, such as “diverse individuals,” to apply;
    • Staffing agencies that exclude individuals from employment on account of a protected characteristic;
    • Steering individuals into specific jobs or duties based on protected characteristics;
    • Company-wide discriminatory policies
    • Systemic harassment
  • DEI programs that “result in intentional discrimination” through:
    • Employment practices that incentivize race- and sex-based decision-making 
    • Limiting access to training and opportunities
    • Policies and practices that are tied to race- and sex-based demographic goals or other diversity goals
  • Cases with the potential to effect laws supporting the EEOC’s anti-discrimination goals, including those which apply recent Supreme Court precedent, such as:
    • Title VII analyses of DEI programs, following Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, Muldrow v. St. Louis, and Students for Fair Admissions;
    • Voluntary affirmative action programs pursuant to United Steelworkers v. Weber and Johnson v. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency following Ames, Muldrow, and Students;
    • Application of the “some harm” standard adopted in Muldrow v. St. Louis;
    • Employers’ obligation under Title VII to reasonably accommodate religious practices under Groff v. DeJoy;
    • Clarifying the scope of Bostock v. Clayton County including employees’ right to single-sex intimate spaces, employees’ and employers’ right to express the binary nature of sex; and employees’ right to religious accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs; and
    • The scope of liability under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
  • Cases protecting vulnerable workers, including teenagers, people with limited literacy or developmental or intellectual disabilities, employees with low-wage jobs, and survivors of sexual assault.
  • Cases involving the “integrity or effectiveness” of the EEOC’s enforcement process, particularly the investigation and conciliation of charges. 

For more information, see the EEOC press release.