Mitigate Risk. Lead with Clarity.

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT 

Lawsuit Alleges EEOC Has Halted Federal Employee Class Discrimination Complaints

• Lawsuit claims US civil rights agency has halted all federal-sector class complaints
  

A federal lawsuit filed this week alleges that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ordered an indefinite, undisclosed suspension of federal-sector class discrimination complaints pending before its administrative judges. The lawsuit, filed by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and two federal correctional officers, claims the agency halted an entire category of workplace discrimination proceedings without public notice or explanation.

The plaintiffs allege the EEOC's actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the agency's own federal-sector regulations by effectively halting the class complaint process without following required procedures. They are seeking a court order requiring the EEOC to resume processing federal-sector class discrimination complaints.

See also: EEOC Replaces Strategic Enforcement Plan with New National Enforcement Plan (Issue 68); EEOC Rescinds Voting Procedures and Workplace Harassment Guidance (Issue 48); EEO Leaders File Formal Comments Challenging EEOC's Proposed Strategic Plan (Issue 74)

COURTS & LITIGATION 

Members of Congress Call on DOJ to Withdraw Olmstead Opinion

• Scott, Raskin, Pallone Letter to DOJ Acting Attorney General Blanche re Olmstead

OVERVIEW

On July 24, 2026, Representatives Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, Jamie Raskin, Frank Pallone, Jr., and numerous Members of Congress sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice urging the Department to withdraw its June 17, 2026 Office of Legal Counsel Opinion adopting a narrower interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C. The lawmakers argue that the Opinion misinterprets the Court's holding, departs from decades of federal enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) integration mandate, and creates uncertainty regarding the rights of individuals with disabilities to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.

The letter contends that the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion is inconsistent with longstanding Department of Justice enforcement, prior Republican and Democratic administrations' support for community-based services, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the ADA in Olmstead. The lawmakers urge the Department to rescind the Opinion and reaffirm its commitment to enforcing the ADA's integration mandate consistent with Supreme Court precedent.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The July 24 letter reflects a legal disagreement over the Department of Justice's interpretation of the ADA's integration mandate under Olmstead v. L.C., rather than a dispute over the underlying law itself. The lawmakers argue that the June 17, 2026 Office of Legal Counsel Opinion departs from the Supreme Court's holding, longstanding federal enforcement, and decades of bipartisan implementation of Olmstead, which they contend requires public entities to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.

Notably, the lawmakers emphasize that the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion does not change the governing law. As the letter notes, the Opinion itself acknowledges that any agency action adopting its interpretation would remain subject to judicial review and that states could still face Olmstead claims brought by private plaintiffs. Accordingly, while the Opinion reflects the Department's current legal interpretation and enforcement position, the ADA and the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead remain the controlling legal authorities.

BRIDGE POV

While federal enforcement priorities and legal interpretations may change from one administration to the next, employers' obligations under the ADA remain grounded in the statute and binding judicial precedent. Organizations should continue evaluating disability inclusion and accessibility strategies based on current legal requirements rather than assuming that changes in enforcement posture eliminate legal risk.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Continue complying with the ADA's integration mandate: Review disability accommodation and accessibility practices based on existing statutory requirements and applicable court decisions, not solely on changes in agency enforcement positions.
   
   

2. Separate legal obligations from enforcement priorities: Educate business and HR leaders on the distinction between changes in agency enforcement positions and changes to the underlying legal requirements.
   
   

3. Assess disability inclusion proactively: Continue investing in policies and practices that support integrated access, participation, and equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities, recognizing that disability rights obligations remain enforceable under federal law.

See also: DOJ Memo Challenges Community Living Rights for People with Disabilities (Issue 70); CDC Ends Remote Work as Disability Accommodation, Raising Civil Rights Concerns (Issue 31); Texas-Led Coalition Challenges Federal Disability Integration Requirements Under Section 504 (Issue 50)

EEOC Opens Public Comment Period on Proposal to Eliminate EEO-1 Reporting

• EEOC Moves One Step Closer to Eliminating EEO-1 Reporting (US)

On July 23, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) proposed rule to eliminate EEO-1 and related demographic reporting requirements was published in the Federal Register, officially opening a 30-day public comment period. The proposal would rescind longstanding requirements for covered employers to submit annual workforce demographic data through the EEO-1 reporting process, as well as eliminate EEO-2 through EEO-6 reporting requirements. A public hearing is scheduled for August 11, 2026, before the Commission considers whether to adopt a final rule. Existing EEO-1 reporting requirements remain in effect unless and until the rule is finalized.

Comments can be submitted here: Federal Register :: Removal of Reporting Requirements

Federal Keyword Lists Used to Cancel Billions in Research Funding

• Inside the federal keyword lists that canceled billions in research funding

Court documents filed in ongoing litigation brought by University of California researchers reveal that multiple federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Defense (DOD), and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), used keyword-based searches to identify research grants for termination. According to the court filings, the lists included DEI-related terms such as "diversity," "health equity," and "environmental justice," as well as a broader range of terms including "ally," "injustice," "prejudice," "institutional," "historically," "traumatic," "solar," "wind," "carbon neutrality," "federal sustainability," and "transgenderism."

The plaintiffs contend the discovery supports their claims that the federal government unlawfully targeted research based on viewpoint and subject matter in violation of the First Amendment. 

See also: USDA Keyword Purge Targets “Diversity” and “Climate” Grants (Issue 39); Depositions Reveal AI-Driven Review Used to Terminate Federal DEI Grants (Issue 56); Underground Railroad Education Center Sues NEH Over Grant Cancellation (Issue 57); First Amendment Likely Bars DEI Grant Terminations (Issue 66); Scientists Unite Against Trump Grant Attacks (Issue 72)