The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been exceptionally active in recent months. Under Chair Andrea Lucas, the agency has adopted a new strategic plan, proposed eliminating long-standing demographic reporting requirements, announced a steady stream of lawsuits and settlements, and aggressively used its subpoena power. At the same time, procedural changes at the charge stage are compressing the time employers have to respond. This alert summarizes some key developments and offers practical recommendations for employers.
1. Shortened Position Statement Deadlines
Employers responding to EEOC charges are reporting a notable change in the time permitted to respond. As recently reported by multiple outlets, EEOC offices increasingly appear to be setting position statement deadlines to 15 days, compared with the 30 days that employers have historically been given.
The practical effect is significant. With roughly half the usual time to investigate, collect documents, and interview witnesses, employers that wait to react until a charge lands on the right desk may find themselves out of time to meaningfully respond. This impact could follow them to trial. Employers should consider the following steps.
Make Sure Managers Are Checking Their Inboxes for Charges
Charge notices are increasingly delivered electronically through the EEOC's Respondent Portal, and the strategic plan for fiscal years 2026 – 2030 calls for continued improvements to the agency's digital charge-filing and intake systems. A notice sitting unread in a current or former manager's or human resources (HR) employee's inbox can consume much of a shortened response window. Employers should confirm the correct contact person is designated with the EEOC, ensure that inboxes (and spam filters) are monitored, and instruct employees to immediately forward any EEOC correspondence to HR and legal counsel for response.
Gather Documents as Soon as You Receive Notice
Employers should have a ready-to-execute plan when a charge arrives that includes issuing a litigation hold; identifying key custodians; and collecting relevant documentation such as personnel files, policies, handbooks, complaint records, electronic communications, and other documents. Courts are scrutinizing employers' collection practices. Specifically, a federal court in Puerto Rico compelled supervised searches for documents after the owner of a retail pharmacy chain admitted he had not searched his own email, texts, or the devices of relevant custodians, and that court reopened discovery to permit a forensic inspection into when and by whom a revised employee manual, produced after the discovery deadline, was created.
File a General Denial and Supplement Later
Where the facts cannot be fully developed within the prescribed deadline, employers should consider submitting a timely, measured position statement that generally addresses the allegations, preserves defenses, and expressly reserves the right to supplement once the internal investigation is complete. A timely general response is preferable to a missed deadline or a rushed, detailed statement that later proves inaccurate. Because position statements may be shared with the charging party and can be used in later litigation, every factual assertion made in writing to the EEOC should be accurate and supportable.
Reevaluate the Necessity of Each Detail Provided in the Response
The EEOC's own recent enforcement record shows that position statements matter. In one recent subpoena enforcement action, the court held that because the employer identified certain executives and officers in its position statement, their personnel files were relevant and subject to production. Employers should be deliberate about what they include, recognizing that everything in the response may define the scope of the investigation that follows.
2. Focus on Settlements
The agency continues to seek substantial monetary damages and injunctive relief from employers, frequently through pre-litigation conciliation. Recently publicized resolutions boast settlements of millions of dollars with employers in areas that support this administration's agenda:
- $5 million paid by a Department of Energy national laboratory contractor to resolve a commissioner's charge and 15 individual charges concerning denial of religious and disability accommodations under a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
- $2.8 million paid by a national security laboratory operator to resolve charges alleging denial of religious and disability accommodations related to its COVID-19 vaccine and testing policy.
- $1.3 million paid by a retail furniture company to resolve allegations that it favored Hispanic applicants over non-Hispanic applicants.
Settlements routinely require more than money and may include: multiyear consent decrees or conciliation agreements, revised policies, training, notice postings, EEOC monitoring, and periodic compliance reporting.
The new strategic plan sets targets to obtain equitable relief in 97 percent of conciliation agreements and favorable litigation resolutions, to favorably resolve at least 90 percent of enforcement lawsuits annually, and to enhance monitoring of conciliation agreements. Employers should expect the agency to press for robust non-monetary terms. (EEOC Strategic Plan 2026-2030 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).
3. The Use of Litigation as a Tool to Send a Message
Shifting Enforcement Priorities
The agency's National Enforcement Plan identifies as priorities: remedying Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)-related race and sex discrimination; protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination; defending single-sex spaces at work and workers' rights to express the binary nature of sex; and protecting religious accommodation and religious liberty rights.
Recent activity reflects each of these:
- National origin: The EEOC sued an IT staffing agency after a recruiter advertised a role as "ONLY H-1B." In addition, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas launched a social media campaign soliciting complaints of "anti-American discrimination."
- DEI: A federal court in Wisconsin enforced an EEOC subpoena against a financial services company investigating a charge challenging its diversity and inclusion policy, including requests for affirmative action plans and DEI-related documents. Separately, the EEOC also filed a subpoena enforcement action against the City and County of San Francisco seeking information about mandatory DEI trainings.
- Single-sex spaces: The City of O'Fallon, Illinois, agreed to designate locker room and shower facilities as "Women" and "Men" to resolve a charge. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that "the city subjected an employee to harassment when it failed to provide a sex-designated locker room for use only by women."
What the EEOC Is Telling Appellate Courts
The EEOC is also advocating for these priorities through its amicus briefs.
- Protecting American workers: In a pending Fourth Circuit appeal, the EEOC backed a jury verdict, including punitive damages, for an American employee of a German auto manufacturer whose employer told her she would be transferred to make room for a German employee.
- Expanding religious accommodation: In a pending Second Circuit case, the EEOC and the Department of Justice jointly asked the court to rehear a decision that made religious accommodation claims harder to bring. They argued that workers should not have to prove the employer wanted to avoid accommodating them or show a separate negative action beyond the denial itself.
Why should employers care how the EEOC supports its priorities? These briefs show the agency using its voice in the appeals courts, not just its own lawsuits, to advance the same priorities it has set for enforcement. In response, employers should review hiring, transfer, and staffing decisions involving foreign nationals and visa holders, and take every religious accommodation request seriously.
4. Retreat From Disparate Impact and Data Collection
In July 2026, the Commission voted 2 to 1 to propose rescinding the EEO-1 and related demographic reporting requirements. Employers should not assume they are relieved of recordkeeping obligations because Commissioner Kotagal has emphasized that Section 709(c) of Title VII still requires employers to make and keep relevant records, and the EEOC's authority to request records in charge investigations remains unchanged. Furthermore, keeping the relevant data previously required for EEO filings can help provide valid defenses to discrimination claims when the evidence can support equal treatment of comparator employees.
Similarly, on October 29, 2026, the EEOC revoked 2012 guidance that warned criminal history screening could violate Title VII through disparate treatment or through neutral policies that disproportionately affect certain racial or national origin groups (disparate impact). It urged employers to weigh the nature and gravity of the offense, the time elapsed, and the nature of the position before excluding someone. The move reflects the EEOC’s retreat from disparate impact enforcement. However, this is not a green light for blanket exclusions: screening remains subject to disparate treatment and disparate impact challenges under Title VII and case law. Disparate impact claims also remain available under many state laws and in private suits. Fair Credit Reporting Act requirements are unaffected, and state and local fair chance laws keep expanding, including New York City’s amended Fair Chance Act rules effective October 30, 2026. Employers should keep core safeguards: consistent screening standards, exclusions tied to each position’s duties and risks, no overly broad or permanent bars, distinguishing arrests from convictions, and individualized review where appropriate.
If you have questions about these developments or need assistance responding to an EEOC charge, please contact any member of Baker Donelson's Labor & Employment Group.