By: Ty Hyderally, Esq. and Jamie Davila, Esq.

Date: September 3, 2026

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) has unveiled a new National Enforcement Plan (NEP) for Fiscal Years 2025-2029, making it one of the most significant shifts in federal employment discrimination enforcement in recent years. For employers, in-house counsel, HR leaders, and compliance professionals, the message is clear: the EEOC is recalibrating its enforcement priorities, with particular scrutiny directed toward diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, national origin discrimination, religious accommodation, and sex-based workplace policies[1].

The new NEP replaces the agency’s prior Strategic Enforcement Plan and reflects the policy priorities of the current Commission under Chair Andrea Lucas. While the federal anti-discrimination statutes themselves remain unchanged, the agency’s investigative and litigation resources will be increasingly focused on a new set of priorities that may substantially impact employer compliance strategies.

A Shift Away from Prior EEOC Enforcement Models

Historically, the EEOC devoted substantial resources to disparate impact investigations, vulnerable worker initiatives, and LGBTQ+ workplace protections. The new NEP signals a departure from those priorities and instead emphasizes intentional discrimination claims, specifically those involving employment decisions based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics[2].

According to the EEOC’s June 2026 announcement, the agency intends to focus on high-impact cases involving repeated or overt discrimination, unresolved legal questions, and broader workplace policies that may affect large groups of employees[3].

This shift is particularly noteworthy because enforcement priorities often influence not only litigation decisions, but also investigations, agency guidance, settlement strategies, and employer compliance expectations.

DEI Programs Face Heightened Scrutiny

The EEOC has indicated that programs designed to achieve certain demographic outcomes or provide employment advantages based on protected characteristics may draw enforcement attention from the agency. The agency has specifically identified practices such as demographic hiring targets, diversity-related compensation metrics, race- or sex-exclusive opportunities, and certain affinity-group programs as areas of potential concern[4].

This enforcement aligns with prior guidance jointly issued by the Department of Justice and EEOC warning employers that labeling a program as “DEI” does not shield it from scrutiny under Title VII if employment decisions are influenced by race or sex[5].

For employers, the practical takeaway is not that all DEI efforts are unlawful. Rather, organizations should carefully evaluate whether workplace initiatives could be interpreted as granting preferences or imposing disadvantages based on protected characteristics. Policies should be reviewed through the lens of Title VII’s requirement for equal treatment of individuals.

The End of the EEOC’s Affirmative Action Safe Harbor

Increasing employer uncertainty, the EEOC voted in June 2026 to rescind its 1979 affirmative action guidelines and related Compliance Manual provisions. These materials had served as a key framework for employers designing voluntary affirmative action plans for nearly five decades[6].

It is important to note that the rescission does not automatically invalidate affirmative action plans. Supreme Court decisions such as United Steelworkers v. Weber and Johnson v. Transportation Agency, where the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII does not ban voluntary affirmative action plans aimed at fixing historical job segregation, remain binding precedent. However, the loss of the EEOC’s interpretive framework creates greater compliance uncertainty and increases litigation risk for employers maintaining race- or sex-conscious employment programs[7].

Increased Focus on National Origin Discrimination

Another significant NEP priority involves what the EEOC describes as protecting American workers[8].

The agency has signaled heightened scrutiny of hiring practices that may favor noncitizens, visa holders, or foreign workers over qualified U.S. workers. At the same time, Title VII’s prohibition on national origin discrimination remains fully intact. Employers should therefore be cautious about citizenship preferences, language requirements, and recruiting practices that could create disparate treatment concerns.

Organizations that use guest-worker programs or recruit internationally should review job postings, selection criteria, and hiring documentation to ensure decisions are based on legitimate business needs rather than citizenship-related assumptions. [9]

Religious Accommodation Takes Center Stage

The NEP elevates religious liberty from a secondary consideration to a standalone enforcement priority[10].

The EEOC has indicated it will actively pursue cases involving alleged failures to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs, particularly where those beliefs intersect with workplace requirements concerning gender identity, pronoun usage, or DEI initiatives[11].

This emphasis builds on recent Supreme Court guidance in Groff v. DeJoy, which expanded protections for employees seeking religious accommodations by requiring employers to show substantial increased costs before denying accommodation requests.[12]

Employers should revisit accommodation policies, manager training, and complaint procedures to ensure requests are evaluated consistently and documented thoroughly.

EEO-1 Reporting Requirements May Be Eliminated

The EEOC voted in July 2026 to propose rescinding EEO-1 and related demographic reporting requirements. The agency argues that the reporting system imposes substantial costs while providing limited enforcement value and potentially raising constitutional concerns[13].

However, employers should not assume that reporting requirements have disappeared. The proposal remains subject to the federal rulemaking process, and current EEO-1 obligations remain in effect unless and until a final rule is adopted. However, many state and local jurisdictions maintain independent reporting obligations that would continue regardless of federal action.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The EEOC’s 2026 National Enforcement Plan reflects a fundamental shift in federal employment discrimination enforcement priorities. Employers should consider:

• Auditing DEI programs for potential disparate treatment risks.
• Reviewing voluntary affirmative action plans following the rescission of EEOC guidance.
• Evaluating recruiting and hiring practices related to citizenship and national origin.
• Strengthening religious accommodation procedures.
• Continuing EEO-1 compliance while monitoring federal rulemaking developments.
• Ensuring compliance efforts account for both federal and state employment laws.

Conclusion

Although the statutory framework of Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA remains unchanged, the EEOC’s enforcement approach has shifted dramatically. The agency’s new focus on intentional discrimination, DEI-related practices, religious accommodation, and national origin issues signals increased risk for employers whose policies do not align with evolving federal priorities. Employers that proactively review workplace policies and seek legal guidance now will be better positioned to navigate this rapidly changing enforcement landscape.

If you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-three (23) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice regarding your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.

[1] EEOC Releases New National Enforcement Plan, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, June 4, 2026,  https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-releases-new-national-enforcement-plan (Last visited on September 1, 2026).

[2] Simone R.D. Francis, T. Scott Kelly, and Zachary V. Zagger, EEOC Issues New National Enforcement Plan for FY 2025-2029, Ogletree Deakins, June 5, 2026, https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/eeoc-issues-new-national-enforcement-plan-for-fy2025-fy2029/  (Last visited on September 1, 2026).

[3] Id. at 1.

[4] Samia M. Kirmani, Andrew F. Maunz, Christopher T. Patrick, Ana C. Shields, Michael D. Thomas, and Lindsey Whtie, EEOC Releases New National Enforcement Plan, Jackson Lewis, June 5, 2026, https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/eeoc-releases-new-national-enforcement-plan (Last visited on September 1, 2026).

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 1.

[7] Sharlynne M. Mate and Emily Schifter, EEOC’s 2026 National Enforcement Plan and Related Actions: What Changed and What Employers Should Do Now, JDSUPRA, August 31, 2026, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/eeoc-s-2026-national-enforcement-plan-3931624/  (Last visited on September 1, 2026).

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 2.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 1.