The EEOC changed its enforcement priorities on June 4, 2026. If you have a pending charge, a claim you are thinking about filing, or a situation at work you have been watching, you need to understand what changed and what it means for you specifically.

This post explains the four major shifts in the EEOC’s new National Enforcement Plan, what each one means for employees, and what your options are right now.

The official NEP press release is available at eeoc.gov. The full signed document is available here.

What is the National Enforcement Plan?

The National Enforcement Plan, or NEP, is the EEOC’s formal five-year roadmap. It tells the agency what types of charges to prioritize, what theories of discrimination to investigate and litigate, and how to deploy its resources. The new NEP covers fiscal years 2025 through 2029 and was issued under EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. It replaces the Biden-era Strategic Enforcement Plan that was in place since 2023.

An enforcement plan does not change the law. Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, the EPA, GINA, and the PWFA are still in effect. What the NEP changes is what the EEOC will actively pursue on your behalf.

Change 1: Disparate impact claims are effectively gone at the federal level.

This is the most significant shift and the one that affects the most employees.

Disparate impact is a legal theory that says a facially neutral policy, one that does not mention race, sex, age, or any other protected class on its face, can still be illegal if it has a disproportionate negative effect on a protected group. Classic examples include written tests that screen out Black applicants at higher rates, height and weight requirements that screen out women, and degree requirements that screen out older workers who built careers before college became standard.

The new NEP directs the EEOC to eliminate the use of disparate impact theories in investigations to the maximum degree possible and to not commence, develop, or continue pursuing litigation advancing disparate impact claims.

Then on June 9, 2026, five days after the NEP dropped, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum opinion concluding that the EEOC’s existing guidelines on Title VII’s disparate impact provisions are unconstitutional. EEOC Chair Lucas publicly welcomed that opinion.

What this means for you: If your discrimination claim is based entirely on a neutral policy that hurt you and others like you disproportionately, a test, a credential requirement, a neutral-sounding policy with a disparate effect, the EEOC is not going to investigate it. You may receive a right-to-sue letter quickly, which allows you to take your claim to federal court. Disparate impact is not dead as a legal theory. It is codified in Title VII. But the EEOC is not your vehicle for it right now.

Change 2: The EEOC is now treating some DEI programs as intentional discrimination.

The NEP explicitly identifies DEI-related employment practices as an enforcement priority. The agency’s position is that employment decisions made on the basis of race or sex, including those made in the context of diversity initiatives, constitute intentional discrimination under Title VII.

In December 2025, Chair Lucas publicly encouraged workers to file discrimination charges if DEI programs used race or sex as a factor in hiring, promotions, compensation, training, or other employment decisions. The EEOC sent letters to 20 major law firms in early 2025 requesting detailed information about their DEI practices.

What this means for you: If you are a member of a group that is traditionally protected under Title VII, Black employees, women, employees over 40, employees with disabilities, and you believe a DEI program was applied in a way that harmed you, your claim under the current EEOC is likely to get more attention than it would have previously. If you are a white male employee who believes a DEI program disadvantaged you, the current EEOC under Chair Lucas has explicitly signaled it will take your charge seriously.

The law has not changed. Both of those situations were theoretically actionable before. What has changed is the agency’s willingness to investigate and litigate them.

Change 3: The EEOC is prioritizing intentional discrimination over systemic claims.

The NEP states that the EEOC will prioritize disparate treatment, which is intentional discrimination, over disparate impact. The agency’s position is that intentional discrimination is more egregious than unintentional disparities arising from neutral policies.

This is a shift from the Biden-era approach, which emphasized systemic discrimination, patterns affecting large groups, and used disparate impact as a tool to address structural inequalities in hiring, promotion, and pay.

What this means for you: If your claim is that your employer treated you differently because of who you are, fired you, passed you over, harassed you, paid you less because of your race, sex, age, national origin, disability, religion, or another protected class, the current EEOC is aligned with pursuing that claim. Intentional, individual discrimination is exactly what the agency says it wants to prioritize.

If your claim is more systemic, a company-wide policy that hurts a group you belong to, the EEOC is less likely to take it on under the current plan.

Change 4: The agency has repositioned itself as an executive branch agency aligned with administration policy.

The NEP explicitly reaffirms the EEOC’s status as an executive branch agency aligned with the current administration’s policy objectives. This is a departure from how the EEOC has historically operated as an independent agency.

The practical consequence is that the EEOC’s enforcement priorities will track the political priorities of the administration in power. Under the current administration, that means the priorities described above, deprioritizing disparate impact, scrutinizing DEI programs, focusing on intentional individual discrimination.

What this means for you: The EEOC you are dealing with today is not the same agency it was two years ago. Its institutional posture has changed. Its willingness to investigate certain types of claims has changed. Its leadership has changed. If your claim fits the current priorities, the agency may be more aggressive on your behalf than you expect. If your claim does not fit those priorities, you need to know that going in.

Your rights have not changed. The agency’s willingness to enforce them has.

This is the most important thing to understand about the NEP.

Title VII still prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The ADA still prohibits disability discrimination. The ADEA still protects workers 40 and older. The EPA still requires equal pay for equal work. GINA still protects your genetic information. The PWFA still requires pregnancy accommodations.

None of those statutes were repealed. None of them were amended. The law on the books is the same law it was before June 4, 2026.

What changed is what the agency charged with enforcing those laws will actively pursue. An EEOC that issues you a right-to-sue letter without investigating your disparate impact claim is not saying your claim is invalid. It is saying it will not be the one to litigate it. You can still take that claim to federal court.

What to do right now.

If you have a pending EEOC charge based on disparate impact, contact the EEOC to find out the status. Under an internal agency memo issued after Executive Order 14281, the EEOC planned to close nearly all pending charges based solely on disparate impact by September 30, 2025. If your charge is still open, get clarity on where it stands.

If you are thinking about filing and your claim involves intentional discrimination, you were treated differently because of a protected characteristic, file. The current EEOC has explicitly said it will prioritize those claims.

If your claim involves a neutral policy with a disparate effect on a protected group, file with the EEOC anyway. You are still required to exhaust your administrative remedies before you can sue in federal court under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and GINA. Filing preserves your rights. The EEOC may close your charge quickly and issue a right-to-sue letter rather than investigate it, but that letter is what you need to proceed in federal court. Do not skip the EEOC step. Talk to an employment attorney about your federal court options once you have that letter in hand.

Use the EEOC Eligibility Calculator at Discrimination Navigator to confirm your filing window before any deadline passes. A change in enforcement priorities does not extend your deadline. That clock is still running.

---

Questions Employees Are Asking About the New EEOC Enforcement Plan

Q: My EEOC charge is based on a neutral policy that hurt Black employees more than white employees. What happens to it now?

A: If your charge is based solely on disparate impact, the EEOC indicated in an internal memo issued after Executive Order 14281 that it planned to close nearly all such charges by September 30, 2025. If your charge is still open, contact the EEOC immediately to find out its status. You may receive a right-to-sue letter, which allows you to take your claim to federal court. Disparate impact is still a valid legal theory under Title VII. The EEOC simply is not the vehicle for it right now.

Q: Does the new NEP mean I cannot sue my employer for disparate impact discrimination?

A: No. The NEP does not change the law. Title VII was amended in 1991 to explicitly include disparate impact liability, and that statutory provision is still in effect. What the NEP changes is whether the EEOC will investigate and litigate your claim on your behalf. If the EEOC closes your charge or issues a right-to-sue letter, you can file in federal court directly. You will need a private attorney to do that, but the legal theory remains available to you.

Q: The DOJ said disparate impact guidelines are unconstitutional. Does that mean my claim is illegal?

A: No. The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memorandum issued on June 9, 2026 expressed the opinion that the EEOC’s existing interpretive guidelines on disparate impact are unconstitutional. An OLC opinion is not a court ruling. It does not overturn the statutory language Congress added to Title VII in 1991. Federal courts, not the DOJ, have the final word on constitutional questions. Several federal circuit courts have upheld disparate impact liability. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the legal theory is still viable in federal court.

Q: I was passed over for promotion because my company has a DEI program that favored a less qualified candidate of a different race. Does the new EEOC care about my claim?

A: Yes, under the current EEOC it does. The NEP explicitly identifies DEI-related employment practices that use race or sex as a factor in employment decisions as an enforcement priority. Chair Lucas publicly encouraged workers in this situation to file charges. If you believe a DEI program resulted in intentional discrimination against you based on your race or sex, the current EEOC has signaled it will take that charge seriously regardless of what group you belong to.

Q: I am a Black woman who was passed over for promotion while my company was running a DEI program. Does the new EEOC still care about my claim?

A: Yes, if your claim is based on intentional discrimination. The NEP prioritizes disparate treatment claims, situations where an employer made a decision because of your race, sex, or another protected characteristic. If you can show your employer treated you differently because of who you are, that is exactly the type of claim the current EEOC says it will pursue. What has changed is that systemic and structural claims based on neutral policies with disparate effects are no longer a priority.

Q: My employer has a written test for promotion that Black employees fail at significantly higher rates than white employees. Is that still actionable?

A: As a legal theory, yes. As an EEOC enforcement matter, not under the current plan. The EEOC will not investigate or litigate that claim as a disparate impact case. File your charge with the EEOC to preserve your rights, then request a right-to-sue letter and pursue the claim in federal court with a private attorney. Some plaintiff-side employment lawyers are already positioning to take these cases directly to court given the EEOC’s withdrawal from the field.

Q: I have a pending EEOC charge. Does the new NEP affect my charge?

A: It depends on what your charge alleges. If your charge is based on intentional discrimination, your employer treated you differently because of a protected characteristic, the NEP should not negatively affect your charge. If your charge is based solely on disparate impact, it may have already been closed or may be closed soon. Contact the EEOC directly to get the current status of your charge and ask specifically whether it is affected by the agency’s current enforcement priorities.

Q: The EEOC says it is focusing on protecting workers of all races and genders including white male employees. Does that mean it is less focused on protecting Black, Hispanic or other marginalized employees? What about women?

A: The NEP states the EEOC’s mission is to protect all workers from discrimination regardless of race or sex. In practice, the shift away from disparate impact enforcement does remove a significant enforcement tool that historically benefited groups who faced systemic disadvantages through neutral policies. Intentional discrimination claims remain fully available. What has diminished is the agency’s willingness to address structural inequality through neutral-policy challenges. Whether that shift helps or hurts any particular group depends entirely on the facts of the specific situation.

Q: My employer retaliated against me for complaining about discrimination. Does any of this affect my retaliation claim?

A: No. Retaliation is its own protected category and the NEP does not signal any change in how the EEOC approaches retaliation claims. If you were fired, demoted, harassed, or otherwise penalized for complaining about discrimination, participating in an EEOC investigation, or supporting a coworker’s complaint, your retaliation claim is unaffected by the NEP’s disparate impact changes. File it.

Q: Should I still file an EEOC charge given all of this?

A: Yes, with one important caveat. For most claims of intentional discrimination, you were treated differently because of your race, sex, age, national origin, disability, religion, genetic information, or pregnancy status, filing with the EEOC is still the required first step before you can sue in federal court under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and GINA. You cannot skip the EEOC process and go straight to court under those statutes. File the charge, preserve your rights, and if the EEOC does not pursue your claim aggressively, request a right-to-sue letter and take it to court. The deadline clock does not stop running while you are weighing your options.