On December 17, 2025, Andrea Lucas, Commissioner of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC’) posted the following message to the X platform: “Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Contact the @USEEOC as soon as possible. The EEOC is committed to identifying, attacking, and eliminating ALL race — including against white male employees and applicants. Visit EEOC.gov to learn more and read our one-page explainer about DEI-related discrimination.” True to its word, in 2026, the EEOC filed many discrimination claims on the basis of membership in traditionally majority groups (white and male). Two are significant: EEOC v. Coca Cola Beverages Northeast, filed on February 17, 2026 in the District of New Hampshire (26-cv-00115) and EEOC v. The New York Times, filed on May 5, 2026 in the Southern District of New York (26-cv-03704). While an uptick in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases is expected in the wake of the Supreme Cout’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, this is a more intentional approach, presenting challenges for employers both during and after the Trump Administration.
In EEOC v. Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, the EEOC alleges that in September 2024, Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast (“Coca-Cola”), a distributor of Coca-Cola products in the Northeast United States area, held an employer-sponsored trip and networking event for female employees only. The event included social and recreational events, team-building activities, and the opportunity to hear from female leaders, including the president of the company. Coca-Cola paid for the hotel rooms, and provided food and beverages. The company paid the usual compensation for female employees who attended the event. The complaint alleges that the male employees “suffered damages” as a result of not receiving an invitation to attend, but does not specify the damages sought. The relief sought by the EEOC in the complaint is broad, but one request stands out: the EEOC requests an order requiring the company to implement programs which provide male employees with equal access to employer-sponsored events, for the purpose of “undoing past and present unlawful employment practices”. One cannot help but notice that this request is at odds with the Trump Administration’s recent Executive Orders taking issue with disparate impact case law – it appears that the EEOC is simultaneously rejecting the historical underpinnings of anti-discrimination laws (to remedy past discrimination), while seeking the same relief on behalf of male employees. Coca-Cola filed a Motion to Dismiss the EEOC’s complaint, based on the EEOC’s failure to specify damage suffered by the male employees. This motion is pending.
In EEOC v. The New York Times, the EEOC alleged a more specific claim. In this case, the EEOC alleges that The New York Times (“NYT”) rejected a candidate for an editorial position solely on the basis of the fact that he is male and white. The Complaint begins by reciting NYT’s diversity and inclusion policies, including detailed allegations relating to NYT’s internal reporting and initiatives encouraging the publication to create more diversity in leadership. The complaint includes data and charts from years of NYT’s internal reporting regarding diversity in its leadership, concluding “A necessary consequence of NYT’s intent to increase the percentage of non-White leaders would be a decrease in the percentage of White leaders.” Perhaps this is the real gripe. The complaint alleges that NYT acted on its stated diversity and inclusion goals by passing over a qualified male employee for a Deputy Real Estate Editor job, and instead selecting a less-qualified mixed-race female employee, on the basis of her race and gender.
In June of 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a so-called “reverse discrimination” case. The Court held that such cases should be reviewed under the same standard as minority-group discrimination cases, without any additional burden as a result of the claimant’s membership in a “majority” group. The Ames decision placed a burden on employers to re-evaluate to ensure that employment decisions are merit-based. The EEOC’s approach in these two cases highlights the risk of failing to do so. Indeed, the cases reflect a goal to attack not just employment decisions based on diversity and inclusion polices, but those policies themselves.
The EEOC and Trump Administration policies represent dramatic changes in the administration of federal anti-discrimination laws. Indeed, the Justice Department recently issued an opinion that the EEOC’s disparate impact guidelines are “unconstitutional.” June 9, 2026 Justice Department Opinion Constitutionality of “Disparate-Impact” Liability under Title VII (case law notwithstanding). The EEOC announced an intention to target “anti-Christian” employment policies (Executive Order 14202), including filing a suit against a franchise of perhaps the most famously pro-Christian fast food chain, Chic-Fil-A, for not allowing a religious accommodation for an employee (“The Lord’s Chicken,” notwithstanding) (EEOC v. Hatch Trick, Inc. Western District of Texas, 26-cv-01275). These initiatives are political, and not (with the exception of Ames) court-made or statutory law.
And therein lies the challenge for employers. Politics and political administrations will change, and the EEOC’s mandates may change, but employers will need to take appropriate steps to comply with the law and mitigate the risk of litigation. Who is to say that today’s “race-blind” approach is not tomorrow’s disparate impact case, or that the elimination of diversity and inclusion programs to comply with Trump administration initiatives will not become the target of the EEOC under a Democratic president. Neither side can argue that the purpose of these laws is to encourage employers to make decisions based on merit, and therein lies the solution for employers. Employers must, more than ever, base decisions on documented merit-based qualifications, and should keep records of those decisions. A clear record of the business decisions for employment decisions will help employers survive politics-based challenges from either side of the aisle.
Patricia C. Collins is a Partner and Employment Law Chair with Antheil Maslow & MacMinn, LLP, based in Doylestown, PA. Her practice focuses primarily on employment, commercial litigation and health care law. Patricia Collins can be contacted at 215.230.7500 ext. 126.