The EEOC’s New National Enforcement Plan
What It Means for Employers
The EEOC has replaced its Strategic Enforcement Plan with a new National Enforcement Plan — a real shift in how employers will be investigated, and in what compliance now demands.
This Week at Work
The EEOC has replaced its Strategic Enforcement Plan with a new National Enforcement Plan — a real shift in how employers will be investigated, and in what compliance now demands.
If you lead people for a living, you’ve probably already seen the headlines: the EEOC has a new enforcement plan, and DEI is in the crosshairs. What’s harder to find is a straight answer to the only question that matters on a Monday morning — what does this actually change for my organization, and what should I do about it?
On June 4, 2026, the EEOC approved a new National Enforcement Plan (NEP) covering fiscal years 2025 through 2029. It replaces the Strategic Enforcement Plan that guided the agency’s priorities before, and it took effect immediately. This isn’t a routine refresh. It signals a genuine shift in what the agency will investigate, how it will pursue those cases, and where employers are most exposed. Here’s what changed and what to do about it — and if you’d rather take it in by watching or listening, it’s all covered on This Week at Work.
What the National Enforcement Plan Actually Changes
The plan reorders the agency’s priorities around intentional discrimination. In legal terms, the EEOC is prioritizing disparate treatment claims and stepping back from disparate impact claims — and that one distinction drives much of what follows. Disparate treatment means an employer treated someone differently because of a protected characteristic like race, sex, or religion. Disparate impact is different: a policy that looks neutral on its face — say, a 100-pound lifting requirement — but falls harder on one protected group than another. Under the NEP, the agency has said it will eliminate the use of disparate impact theories in investigations “to the maximum degree possible.”
DEI programs are named directly. The plan identifies specific practices as potential intentional discrimination, including hiring preferences, diversity hiring goals, diverse-slate requirements, mentorship programs limited by protected class, and executive incentives tied to demographic outcomes. The agency’s language frames these as active areas of investigation, not abstract concern.
The EEOC is also changing how it operates. Instead of each regional office setting its own priorities, the agency will work from a single national strategy — one that lets it move cases across district offices and shift resources wherever it wants maximum impact. That’s the “National” in National Enforcement Plan, and it’s a meaningful structural change from the district-by-district model employers were used to.
One detail worth holding onto: although the plan is labeled FY2025–FY2029, it doesn’t expire on a schedule. It stays in effect until the Commission votes to change it.
Why This Matters for HR and Business Leaders
The practical exposure is broader than DEI alone. The plan signals heightened scrutiny across several areas at once — systemic, pattern-or-practice discrimination and harassment; protections for vulnerable workers; recordkeeping; and retaliation. The agency has been clear that it wants cases that establish precedent, not just resolve individual disputes, which means the matters it pursues are likelier to be large, public, and costly.
Renaming a program won’t answer the underlying question. Burt Garland, a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins, points to how strictly the administration has treated institutions that simply relabeled their DEI efforts. The real test isn’t the name on the program — it’s whether employment decisions are being made on the basis of protected characteristics.
|
“If you want to accomplish certain things through a DEI program, you have to do it within the confines of Title VII.” Burt Garland, Ogletree Deakins |
Religious accommodation is now a two-sided priority. The EEOC is increasing attention on religious accommodation, discrimination, and retaliation — including situations where an employee raises a religious objection to a workplace policy. Employers should expect more scrutiny of how accommodation requests are evaluated and handled.
And employers shouldn’t assume they’re safely outside the lines. The plan emphasizes “evenhanded” enforcement, meaning the agency intends to pursue claims on behalf of majority-group workers with the same vigor as any other. It has also reserved the ability to open investigations on its own, without waiting for an employee to file a charge.
What to Do Now
None of this calls for panic. It calls for a methodical look at the places where risk actually lives.
Start with your DEI-related policies. Look for anything that relies on quotas, demographic targets, or protected characteristics in employment decisions — and where you find it, rework it so inclusion efforts operate within the bounds of Title VII rather than around them. Many organizations can keep pursuing inclusion and belonging; the work is making sure the mechanics comply with current law. Our breakdown of how to keep DEI programs legal and effective walks through that review in practical terms.
From there, move outward through the rest of the employment lifecycle. Review hiring practices for language or criteria that could screen by protected characteristics. Refresh your accommodation and interactive-process procedures, especially for religious requests. Audit your documentation so decisions are defensible after the fact. And investigate complaints promptly — delayed or inconsistent investigations are exactly the kind of process failure the agency looks for.
Don’t overlook manager training. Frontline managers make most of the day-to-day decisions that either create or contain exposure, and they’re rarely the ones reading enforcement plans. Getting them aligned on what’s changed is often the highest-leverage step an employer can take.
The mistake to avoid is reacting at either extreme — dismantling programs overnight or ignoring the change entirely. The steadier path is thoughtful compliance: understand what changed, review your policies, train your managers, and make informed decisions rather than reactive ones.
|
“Preparation is much less expensive than litigation.” Burt Garland, Ogletree Deakins |
Frequently Asked Questions
Do we have to shut down our DEI programs?
Not necessarily. The priority for employers is evaluation, not automatic elimination. The question the agency is asking is whether employment decisions are being made on the basis of protected characteristics. Programs built around inclusion and belonging can often continue, provided they don’t rely on quotas, demographic targets, or protected characteristics in actual decisions.
What’s the difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact?
Disparate treatment is intentional — treating an individual or group differently because of a protected characteristic. Disparate impact involves a neutral-looking policy that disproportionately affects a protected group even without intent to discriminate. The NEP prioritizes the first and steps back from the second.
Does the FY2025–FY2029 label mean the plan expires in 2029?
No. Despite the fiscal-year framing, the plan remains in effect until a majority of the Commission votes to supersede, modify, or withdraw it.
Can the EEOC investigate us even if no employee has filed a complaint?
Yes. The agency has mechanisms to initiate investigations on its own into priority areas, without waiting for a worker to file a charge — which is part of why proactive policy review matters now rather than after a complaint arrives.
The Bottom Line
Enforcement priorities will keep swinging with each administration — that part isn’t new. What employers can control is how prepared they are when the swing comes. The organizations that review their policies, train their leaders, and document their decisions now will spend the next few years confident rather than scrambling.
If you’d like help pressure-testing your policies or strengthening manager training, AAIM members can connect with our Solutions Team at solutions.team@aaimea.org.
This Week at Work
Phil Brandt and Burt Garland walk through the plan in plain language — including the “Monday-morning” review Burt recommends and the enforcement trends he’s watching that didn’t make this write-up. Watch or listen to the full episode of This Week at Work.
Further reading: the EEOC’s signed National Enforcement Plan and Ogletree Deakins’ analysis of the plan.
AAIM in the Community
July 31: Central Illinois HR Conference
Aug 4 – 7: MOSHRM State Conference
Aug 24 – 26: SHRM Indiana Conference
Aug 30 – Sept 2: HR Florida Conference & Expo
Oct 9: Greater St. Louis SHRM Conference
Training
Contact Us
Headquarters
12851 Manchester Rd
Suite 150
St. Louis, MO 63131
Toll-Free: 800.948.5700