By Mary T. O’Sullivan, MSOL
“We are deeply concerned by the unlawful termination of two highly qualified EEOC commissioners … By removing Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels from their positions, the …Administration is sending a clear message that protecting the rights of workers comes second to political gain.” — Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel, Legal Defense Fund
Recent leadership changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have severely imperiled the enforcement of civil rights. Under the current Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, the EEOC notably de-prioritized—or outright dropped—multiple pending Civil Rights cases, especially those related to gender identity and broader civil rights claims. These reversals reflect a major shift in the agency’s priorities, reminding workers that, right now in our history, justice can not depend solely on the EEOC. When the agency won’t take your case, it often reflects the current political climate—not weak claims—and requires you to get creative and take action.
In early 2025, the EEOC dismissed six of its own pending cases which accused employers in Illinois, California, Alabama, and New York of discrimination based on gender identity. These cases included serious abuses such as wrongful termination, misgendering, and harassing behavior. The agency cited the newly minted executive order defining sex as strictly binary, either male or female, ignoring established Supreme Court precedent like the case of Bostock v. Clayton County. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Legal experts, including former General Counsel David Lopez, the longest-serving General Counsel of the EEOC, denounced the EEOC’s dismissal of this case as discriminatory in itself—a reversal of the agency’s own enforcement precedents.
Simultaneously, the EEOC reclassified all new gender identity complaints as “C” priority—the lowest tier, typically reserved for cases without merit—effectively putting any new transgender and nonbinary claims on indefinite hold unless the complainant opts to pursue a private lawsuit. Critics like former EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum warned this shift fundamentally undermines the EEOC’s duty to enforce Title VII protections for these populations which are considered protected classes under Title VII.
Parallel to transgender claim rollbacks, the DOJ rescinded several Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidance documents—materials vital for defining disability rights for employers to follow and for the protection of disabled people. These included workplace accessibility and accommodation guidance critical in ensuring employer compliance with the law. The rationale was “streamlining” and reducing “administrative costs” as per newly introduced executive directives. ADA Advocates noted these removals create legal uncertainty and serve as a barrier to enforcement— and are not a benefit to the disabled. Furthermore, the regulatory definition of “disparate impact”— the basis for many ADA and anti-bias cases—was also targeted. An executive order instructed the EEOC and DOJ to evaluate and likely withdraw existing cases or investigations based on “disparate impact”, particularly those challenging job screenings or tools that may disproportionately affect disabled or protected groups. The EEOC’s lawsuit against Sheetz, which alleged disparate impact in criminal-history-based hiring practices, is now very much at risk. The core of the EEOC’s claim at the time was “disparate impact,” which argues that a “facially neutral” ( appears to be neutral on the surface) policy can violate civil rights laws if it creates discriminatory effects on protected groups and isn’t job-related. In June 2025 EEOC, under its new leadership filed to dismiss the lawsuit. This move was a direct result of the new executive order of April 2025, which directed federal agencies to lower the level of importance of using “disparate impact” liability in civil rights cases.
Even without the new leadership changes, the EEOC may decline to take your case due to limited staff, lack of documentation, and technical issues such as missed deadlines or issues of the proper jurisdiction. But you still have options. When the EEOC walks away from a case, it usually issues a Right-to-Sue Letter, allowing you to go to court, on your own. Now, the responsibility falls entirely to you. Be cautious of deadlines. Usually, a specified period of time, often a 90-day period, is required to file a lawsuit. Fortunately, Courts recognize that the EEOC’s absence of action does not reflect on the case’s merits; Courts understand that it may simply reflect policy changes and has nothing to do with any legality. The Courts are aware that regardless of new executive orders, Title VII is still an Act of Congress and must be followed.
When you find that the EEOC will not champion your case, you can take several other actions. You may wish to retain an employment lawyer to evaluate your case and possibly file a lawsuit. Federal court can still be your venue. Many states—particularly those with strong fair employment laws and agencies—offer protections beyond federal law, including broader ADA coverage, lower eligibility thresholds, or longer filing windows. Depending on the facts of your case, you might pursue defamation or similar claims if false statements about your circumstances harmed your reputation or career. This is particularly important if your employer gives a negative job reference. It’s important to follow up on any job rejections to determine a legitimate defamation claim.
Thankfully, civil rights groups like the ACLU or NAACP may step in, as they have in previously cases dropped by the EEOC. Other groups such as The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), The Southern Poverty Law Center, and others will take your case to court when the EEOC will not support you, due to the new administration’s mandates to weaken the EEOC.
It’s indeed sad when the EEOC departs from its charter under the new administrative demands. The EEOC’s lack of support for fundamental civil rights protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is profoundly undermined. It makes equal opportunity enforcement almost impossible. It signals to employers that discriminatory behavior may go unchecked when our own government isn’t backing us up. This flaw in the EEOC unfortunately disproportionately affects marginalized groups—women, disabled workers, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people of color.
Legal scholars and civil rights advocates warn that the agency’s abandonment of its duties erodes public faith in the whole idea of civil rights protections in America, and leaves individuals exposed to unfair treatment unless they have financial means or can secure support from an independent civil rights organization.
In 2025, we have to accept that when the EEOC won’t take your case, it’s because the government’s priorities for protecting civl rights have changed. But you are still entitled to justice under the law. Now, unfortunately, we find that EEOC decisions are heavily influenced by changes in the administration, politics, and allocated funding, and do not necessarily include the importance of fairness. But you still have rights. Use the Right-to-Sue letter, consult legal counsel, explore state protections, and don’t back down. Your access to justice is not over—it just needs a different strategy.
“Starting from the 1950s, civil rights advocates have been granted standing to sue to eradicate discrimination.” – Thomas B. Bacon, Legal Advocate on ADA Enforcement
