The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted Monday to rescind decades-old guidance that helps employers ensure their workplace is equitable and inclusive.
EEOC Claims Guidance Violated Civil Rights Law
In a press release the next day, the agency claimed the guidance had violated civil rights law and Supreme Court precedence, referring to a unanimous high court decision from last year that made “reverse discrimination” easier to prove.
“As our nation approaches its 250th birthday, we are reminded that the Founders’ vision rested on the enduring principle that every individual is created equal and therefore is entitled to equal treatment under the law,” EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a statement. “This week’s action reaffirms that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all American workers and that equal opportunity remains a defining commitment of our democracy.”
No Public Comment Period
There was no public comment period, even though agencies typically do ask the public for their input. In 1979, the EEOC issued a memo for employers who wanted to comply with affirmative action laws that mandated making the workplace more equitable, while still not violating civil rights laws. The rule was called the “Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as Amended,” referencing the section of the landmark legislation that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex or national origin.
“The EEOC is choosing to get rid of a tool that is intended to help remedy discrimination to try and reduce barriers to opportunity so that workers can have a fair chance to compete for jobs based on their qualifications and merit and not be excluded because of who they are,” said Katie Sandson, senior counsel on education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center.
Impact on Employers and Workers
For example, she said, if a university’s employment practices were leading to an underrepresented and underpaid group among its faculty, they could turn to the memo to help figure out how to address the issue. “The guidelines provided a roadmap for how those employers could take proactive steps to remedy the situation,” Sandson said.
The EEOC was created in 1964 as part of the Civil Rights Act to fight workplace discrimination, but there has been a drastic shift in what kind of complaints the agency has been focusing on since Donald Trump returned to office. Experts say this week’s rescission is just another way for the Trump administration to dismantle civil rights laws that protect workers from discrimination.
“We see this as part of the larger attack by the federal government on anything that they consider to be promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility — the basic values that underlie our civil rights laws,” Sandson said. “We’ve seen those values under attack from day one of this administration.”
Broader Attack on DEI
The Trump administration has indeed been chipping away at anything it perceives to boost diversity, equity and inclusion. The phrase has become a catch-all for programs at workplaces, schools and public institutes that deal with racial or gender equity. The federal government has barred agencies and departments from using words like diversity and equity, and threatened to pull funding from states with DEI programs, and Trump has repeatedly trashed racial equality programs.
“This latest rescission from the EEOC makes even clearer that it is beholden to President Trump’s vision of a re-segregated U.S. workforce,” Deborah Vagins, the senior vice president of advocacy and programs at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. “The Commission is actively attempting to reverse hard-won progress promoting equal opportunity.”
The EEOC did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
Additional Rescissions and Lawsuits
The EEOC also proposed rescinding a workplace data collection rule in May. The rule, which required companies to send over aggregate data about the demographics of its workforce, was intended to help bosses be proactive in finding any areas where they might be falling short of diversity goals — or even running afoul of civil rights laws. “This is a broader strategy of reshaping who the EEOC serves,” Sandson said.
Lucas, the EEOC chair, has given credence to the idea that diversity efforts are harmful to white men. She posted a video to X last year, in which she urged more white men to make discrimination complaints. “We’ve seen them basically suggest that DEI practices are discrimination against white men,” Sandson said. “And so all of this sends a message to employers that if they try to take these types of inclusive and equitable actions, they might be targeted.”
The EEOC announced in February it was suing a Coca-Cola distribution company for sex discrimination after a male employee filed a complaint about a women-only networking event. Then, in May, the agency sued The New York Times after a white male reporter claimed he wasn’t promoted to an editor role because of his race and gender. “I think it sends a really scary message that if you are not a straight, white, Christian man, this agency is not necessarily here to protect you,” Sandson said. “They’re not looking out for your rights and your interests.”
