Mitigate Risk. Lead with Clarity.

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT 

EEOC Adopts Strategic Plan Reshaping Agency’s Civil Rights Enforcement Framework Through 2030

• EEOC Adopts Updated Strategic Plan Through Fiscal Year 2030 

On August 26, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission formally adopted its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2026–2030, replacing the agency’s FY 2022–2026 Strategic Plan and establishing a new framework for the EEOC’s enforcement, education and operations through 2030.

The final plan removes several priorities and commitments contained in the previous Strategic Plan. Explicit references to LGBTQ+ workers and other vulnerable worker populations have been eliminated. Accessibility and barriers to participation receive less emphasis, while inclusivity, accessibility and DEIA are no longer identified among the agency’s Organizational Excellence values. The plan also reduces the emphasis on guidance and technical assistance as tools for promoting voluntary employer compliance.

The new plan introduces “even-handed enforcement” as an agency objective without defining how that standard differs from the EEOC’s previous enforcement approach. It also shifts several measures of the agency’s civil rights work toward operational metrics, including charge processing, intake inventories and case resolution.

The Strategic Plan will operate alongside the National Enforcement Plan adopted by the EEOC in June, which established the agency’s substantive enforcement priorities. Together, the two plans now establish the EEOC’s enforcement priorities and the institutional framework through which the agency intends to carry them out through fiscal year 2030.

See Also: Special Analysis Issue, July 8, 2026: The EEOC's Proposed Strategic Plan

LGBTQ+ RIGHTS  

Title VII Rights of Transgender Employees Severely Restricted by EEOC Settlement

• Christian Employers Can Now Discriminate Against Trans People

• Christian Employers Alliance Secures Major Settlement Protecting Members' Religious Freedom in the Workplace

OVERVIEW

On August 18, the EEOC entered into a binding settlement with the Christian Employers Alliance (CEA) that restricts the agency from pursuing certain Title VII discrimination charges against CEA and qualifying member employers involving gender identity, gender transition or transgender status.

Under the agreement, the EEOC will not investigate or otherwise pursue charges against qualifying CEA members based on gender identity, including pronoun use, sex-specific dress codes, access to sex-specific private spaces, and certain workplace policies or training. The settlement applies to qualifying current members and provides a pathway for future CEA members to receive the same protections.

The settlement does not change Title VII or the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that discrimination against an employee because the employee is transgender or part of the LGBTQ+ community constitutes discrimination because of sex under Title VII. It does, however, restrict the EEOC's enforcement of the law against qualifying CEA members for conduct covered by the agreement and raises procedural questions regarding how impacted employees will be able to avail themselves of their Title VII rights. 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The settlement does not change Title VII or the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, but it creates an unprecedented restriction on the EEOC’s enforcement of those protections. The agreement extends not only to current CEA members but to qualifying future members, provided an employer is a member when the alleged conduct occurs. Karla Gilbride, a former EEOC General Counsel, has described the inclusion of current and future members in perpetuity as unprecedented.

Historically, religious employers facing an EEOC charge have participated in the agency’s administrative process and asserted applicable religious defenses. Under this settlement, the EEOC is restricted from investigating or otherwise pursuing charges involving specified gender identity-related employment practices. The settlement does not change or supersede Title VII or Bostock, but the agreement interferes with the federal administrative enforcement process available to employees bringing covered claims against qualifying CEA members. It also raises questions about whether the settlement will interfere with the ability of impacted employees to file discrimination claims in federal court without required documentation from the EEOC. 

To qualify for CEA membership, employers must certify adherence to the organization’s statement of faith, including beliefs that male and female are defined by biological sex, gender reassignment is contrary to Christian values and marriage is a heterosexual union. The settlement therefore creates a continuing enforcement exemption tied to an employer’s membership in a religious organization and adherence to its stated beliefs.

BRIDGE POV

The EEOC exists to enforce federal protections against workplace discrimination. A permanent agreement that prevents the agency from investigating certain types of discrimination claims against an entire class of current and future employers represents an extraordinary abdication of that responsibility. Religious employers have long had the ability to assert protections based on sincerely held religious beliefs. Those protections should be evaluated through the legal process, not converted into a prospective exemption from the enforcement process itself.

An employer can become eligible for its protections by joining CEA, including after the settlement was reached, while employees may have no knowledge that their employer is a member or subsequently becomes one. That creates the possibility that employees will seek protections through the EEOC without knowing that the agency has already agreed not to protect them. If an employer's membership in an organization changes an employee's access to federal civil rights enforcement, employees should have a right to know that their employer has joined it.

Bostock remains the law. Transgender employees remain protected from discrimination under Title VII, and CEA membership does not change Title VII or Bostock, nor does it eliminate an employer’s obligations under applicable state law. Companies should therefore be extremely cautious about treating this settlement as permission to discriminate. A settlement by the current EEOC is not the same as a change in the law, and membership in an organization is not a substitute for a defensible employment policy.

The larger concern extends beyond this settlement. Civil rights enforcement depends on employees and employers knowing that statutory protections will be administered consistently and that asserted exemptions will be evaluated under the law. When an enforcement agency agrees in advance that it will not investigate certain discrimination claims against employers that have not yet even joined an organization yet, it undermines confidence in both the enforcement process and the principle of equal employment opportunity.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Maintain Compliance with Existing Law: Do not interpret the EEOC settlement as a change to Title VII or Bostock. Continue reviewing employment policies and practices for compliance with federal and applicable state protections against discrimination based on gender identity.  
   
   
2. Provide Transparency About CEA Membership: Employers that are or become CEA members should disclose that membership to employees and explain how it may affect the EEOC's handling of certain gender identity-related discrimination charges. Employees should not discover only after filing a charge that their employer participates in an agreement limiting the agency's ability to investigate it.
   
   
3. Reinforce Protections for Transgender Employees: Ensure employees understand the protections and internal reporting processes available to them regardless of changes in federal enforcement. Maintain clear, consistently applied policies for addressing discrimination and harassment so that shifts in agency enforcement do not create uncertainty about organizational standards.

See also: Andrea Lucas Appointed Acting Commissioner of the EEOC (Issue 2); EEOC Takes Action on Religious Discrimination While Transgender Protections Face Uncertainty (Issue 20); EEOC Reverses Stance, Allows Some Transgender Discrimination Complaints (Issue 26); EEOC Rules Federal Agencies May Bar Transgender Workers from Gender-Appropriate Restrooms (Issue 54); EEOC Rescinds Voting Procedures and Workplace Harassment Guidance (Issue 48); EEOC Withdraws from Transgender Worker Discrimination Lawsuits (Issue 69); Class Action Lawsuit Challenges OPM Policy Banning Gender-Affirming Care Under Federal Employee Health Programs (Issue 78)

Trump Administration Targets Bike Infrastructure as “DEI”

• Do D.E.I. Bike Paths Exist? The Trump Administration Says Yes. 

The administration has escalated its use of the “DEI” label beyond the workplace, revoking federal grants for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and urging Congress to restrict future funding for bike lanes across the country. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has framed bike lanes as contributing to traffic congestion, while the Department of Transportation has also characterized bike-friendly policies as reflecting a liberal social agenda.

The actions have affected previously awarded projects. In Fairfield, Alabama, a majority-Black city where an estimated 17 percent of families lack access to a car, the administration canceled an $11.7 million grant for a bicycle and pedestrian path that had been awarded through a federal sustainability and equity program. A $9.3 million grant for Nashville's East Nashville Spokes project has also been frozen and is now the subject of litigation. In Washington, D.C., a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration's planned removal of a bike lane crossing the National Mall in April, citing an “absence of reasoned decision-making” in the government's justification.

In a July 22 letter to senators, Duffy urged Congress to restrict future federal funding for bike lanes and support the removal of existing lanes that the administration says contribute to congestion. The request would extend the administration's approach beyond individual grant decisions by incorporating restrictions on bicycle infrastructure into future federal transportation policy. For employers, reductions in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure can affect employee commuting options, workplace accessibility and the safety of workers who walk or bike to work, particularly in communities where access to a car is limited.

See also: EPA Terminates Environmental Justice Grants in Communities of Color (Issue 76); 8 States Say Education Dept. Still Targeting DEI in Grant Cuts (Issue 76)

Former Warriors Executives Sue Team Alleging Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation

• Warriors Respond To Lawsuit From Two Ex-Employees Alleging Gender And Racial Discrimination, Harassment

• Two ex-Warriors employees sue franchise, alleging gender, age and racial discrimination

On August 25, 2026, the former Associate General Counsel and former Vice President of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion for the Golden State Warriors jointly filed a lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation. The former executives allege they were terminated after raising concerns about workplace conduct, including management's response to critical results from an anonymous NBA employee engagement survey.

Among other allegations, the former Associate General Counsel claims she experienced gender-based pay inequity, was denied promotions based on gender stereotypes and worked in an environment where female employees' bodies, weight, clothing, attractiveness and appearance were routinely scrutinized. She also alleges the Warriors retaliated against her after her termination by interfering with a subsequent employment opportunity with another NBA team. The Warriors deny the allegations and say they intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.