Office of General Counsel Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Report

Catherine L. Eschbach, Acting General Counsel

Christopher Lage, Deputy General Counsel

Structure and Function of the Office of General Counsel
Fiscal Year 2025 Accomplishments
Litigation Statistics

I. Structure and Function of the Office of General Counsel

A. Mission of the Office of General Counsel

The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to give litigation authority to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) and provide for a General Counsel, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with responsibility for conducting the Commission’s litigation program. Under a 1978 Presidential Reorganization Plan, approved by the Senate, enforcement of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) was transferred from the Department of Labor to the Commission, and the Commission’s General Counsel became responsible for litigation under those statutes. With the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (effective July 26, 1992) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) (effective November 21, 2009), the General Counsel became responsible for litigation under the employment provisions of those statutes (Titles I and V of the ADA and Title II of GINA). Most recently, the General Counsel became responsible for litigation under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2022 (PWFA) (effective June 27, 2023).

The mission of EEOC’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) is to conduct litigation on behalf of the Commission to obtain relief for victims of employment discrimination and ensure compliance with the statutes EEOC is charged with enforcing. Under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the PWFA, the Commission can sue nongovernmental employers with 15 or more employees. The Commission’s suit authority under the ADEA and the EPA includes both private and state and local governmental employers. Private employers must have 20 or more employees for ADEA coverage; there is no employee minimum for governmental employers. There is no employee minimum for EPA coverage, but for most private employers, coverage requires $500,000 or more in annual business. Title VII, the ADA, GINA, the PWFA, and the ADEA also cover labor organizations and employment agencies, and the EPA prohibits labor organizations from attempting to cause an employer to violate that statute. OGC also represents the Commission on administrative claims and litigation brought against the agency by its employees and applicants for employment.

B. Headquarters Programs and Functions

1. General Counsel

The General Counsel is responsible for managing and coordinating the Commission’s enforcement litigation program, and provides overall direction to all components of OGC, including district office legal units. The General Counsel also provides reports to the Commission on litigation activities and advises the EEOC Chair and Commissioners on agency policies and other matters affecting enforcement of the statutes within the Commission’s authority.

2. Principal Deputy General Counsel

The Principal Deputy General Counsel serves the General Counsel as the principal deputy and by functioning as the chief political advisor. The Principal Deputy General Counsel is responsible for providing the General Counsel authoritative legal and policy advice on all matters affecting the Commission’s litigation, enforcement, and management functions, with specific focus on matters involving agency and Administration strategic priorities.

3. Deputy General Counsel

The Deputy General Counsel serves the General Counsel by overseeing all programmatic and administrative functions of OGC, including the litigation program and the litigation support budget allocated to OGC by the EEOC Chair. OGC functions are carried out through the operational program and service areas described below, which report to or through the Deputy.

4. Litigation Management Services

Litigation Management Services (LMS) oversees and supports the Commission’s federal district court enforcement program in the agency’s district offices. In conjunction with EEOC’s Office of Field Programs, LMS also oversees the integration of district office legal units with the offices’ investigative units. LMS provides direct litigation assistance to district office legal units, develops training programs and materials, and collects and creates litigation guidance. LMS also reviews litigation recommendations submitted by district offices. LMS reviews various other field litigation related matters, such as requests to contract for expert services and proposed resolutions in cases in which the General Counsel has retained settlement authority.

5. Appellate Litigation Services

Appellate Litigation Services (ALS) represents the Commission in the federal courts of appeals in all litigation where the agency is a party. ALS also participates as amicus curiae, as approved by the Commission, in federal courts of appeals, federal district courts, and state courts, in cases of interest to the Commission. ALS represents the Commission in the United States Supreme Court through the Department of Justice’s Office of the Solicitor General. ALS also makes recommendations to the Department of Justice in cases where the Department is defending other federal agencies on claims arising under the statutes the Commission enforces.

6. eDiscovery & Information Governance Division

In April 2025, the OGC established the eDiscovery & Information Governance Division (eDIG) to centralize and enhance OGC’s litigation technology and information governance strategy. This reorganization created a more agile, expert-driven model for managing complex data, digital evidence, and legal technology. The division provides direct litigation support and leads information governance for all district office legal units as well as other EEOC offices, providing expertise in the preservation, collection, processing, review, analysis and production of documents and Electronically Stored Information (ESI) to OGC.

7. Expert Analysis Division

The Expert Analysis Division (EAD) provides in-house capacity for expert analysis required during the investigation and litigation of charges of employment discrimination. EAD functions include providing testifying and consulting expert witness and other expert analytics services; coordinating the procurement of external expert services in collaboration with LMS; developing, maintaining, and enhancing data applications for litigation program management as well as data tools for enforcement work; and collaborating with the Office of Field Programs regarding data and analytic work performed by its divisions.

8. Library and Business Division

The Library and Business Division (LBD) provides library services to the entire agency and for OGC management. LBD also provides business support for OGC’s budget, procurement, and human capital operations.

9. Internal Litigation Division

The Internal Litigation Division (ILD) represents the Commission and its officials on claims brought against the agency by its employees and applicants for employment and advises the Commission and agency management on employment-related matters.

C. District Office Legal Units

District office legal units conduct Commission litigation in the geographic areas covered by the agency’s 15 district offices and provide legal advice and other support to district staff responsible for investigating charges of discrimination. In addition to the district office itself, OGC Trial Attorneys are stationed in most field, area, and local offices within districts. Legal units are under the direction of Regional Attorneys, who manage Assistant Regional Attorneys, Trial Attorneys, Paralegals, and support personnel.

II. Fiscal Year 2025 Accomplishments

In FY 2025, OGC filed 94 merits lawsuits (92 employment discrimination lawsuits plus 2 lawsuits challenging breach of conciliation agreements) and resolved 120 merits cases, obtaining a total monetary recovery of almost $27 million in monetary relief. Section A below contains summary statistical information on the fiscal year’s district court litigation results (more detailed statistics appear in part III of the Annual Report). Sections B and C contain descriptions of selected district court resolutions, and Section D contains descriptions of selected appellate and amicus curiae resolutions. For information regarding multi-year litigation statistics and multi-year selected district court resolutions, consult the litigation tables in EEOC Explore.

A. Summary of District Court Litigation Activity

OGC filed 94 merits suits in FY 2025. Merits suits consist of direct suits, interventions alleging violations of the substantive provisions of the Commission’s statutes, and suits to enforce settlements reached during EEOC’s administrative process. In addition to merits suits, OGC filed 13 actions to enforce subpoenas issued during EEOC charge investigations.

OGC’s FY 2025 merits suit filings had the following characteristics:

54 contained claims under Title VII (57.4%)
35 contained claims under the ADA (37.2%)
9 contained claims under the ADEA (9.6%)
7 contained claims under the PWFA (7.4%)
0 contained claims under the EPA (0%)
0 contained claims under GINA (0%)
35 sought relief for multiple individuals (37.2%)

The above statutory claims exceed the number of suits filed (and percentages total over 100) because some cases contain claims under more than one statute. There were 10 of these “concurrent” suits (10.6%) among the FY 2025 filings.

OGC’s merits suit filings alleged violations covering a variety of bases: sex and/or pregnancy (42),[1] disability (35), retaliation (31), religion (10), age (8), national origin (2), race (2), equal pay (0), color (0), and genetic information (0). The issues raised most frequently in EEOC suits were discharge (including constructive discharge) (64), reasonable accommodation (40), harassment and sexual harassment (29), terms and conditions (18), and hiring (16). At the end of FY 2025, EEOC had 180 merits cases on its active district court docket, of which 81 (45%) were class or systemic cases, with 37 (20.6%) of those being systemic cases.

In FY 2025, EEOC filed 6 systemic lawsuits, each of which was approved prior to the loss of a Commission quorum.

OGC resolved 120 merits suits in FY 2025, recovering $26,636,882.66 for an estimated total of 2505 individuals. OGC achieved a successful outcome (settlement or favorable judgment) in 109 (96.5%) of all merits suit resolutions (excluding voluntary dismissals without prejudice). Merits suit resolutions had the following characteristics:

77 contained claims under Title VII (64.2%)
46 contained claims under the ADA (38.3%)
4 contained claims under the ADEA (3.3%)
3 contained claims under the PWFA (2.5%)
2 contained claims under the EPA (1.7%)
0 contained claims under the GINA (0%)
42 cases sought relief for multiple individuals (35%)

The above statutory claims exceed the number of suits filed (and percentages total over 100) because cases sometimes contain claims under more than one statute. There were 12 of these “concurrent” suits (10%) among the FY 2025 resolutions.

In addition to these 120 merit suit resolutions, OGC resolved four suits brought to enforce employer obligations with respect to submitting EEO-1 data to the EEOC. These EEO-1 case resolutions included two consent decrees, one default judgment, and one voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Part III of the Annual Report contains detailed statistical information on OGC’s FY 2025 litigation activities, as well as summary information for past years.

B. Selected Systemic Resolutions

In FY 2025, the EEOC resolved 13 systemic suits, obtaining over $10.8 million for an estimated total of 2,270 individuals and significant equitable relief. Examples of FY 2025 systemic resolutions include:

EEOC v. Waste Industries U.S.A., LLC, et al., No. 1:23-cv-04293 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 21, 2024). In this pattern-or-practice sex discrimination lawsuit under Title VII against providers of solid waste removal, recycling pickup and landfill operation services, the EEOC alleged that a class of qualified female applicants were denied truck driver positions based on their sex in favor of less qualified male applicants. During the application and interview process, female applicants were subjected to derogatory comments about their feminine appearance based on sex-based stereotypes and were asked sexist questions about their ability to do the job, such as, “Why would you want to do a man’s job?” The 3½-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $3.1 million for a class of women who applied for and were unlawfully denied truck driver positions based on their sex and significant injunctive relief that includes hiring and recruitment plans aimed at increasing the pool of qualified female driver applicants.
EEOC v. Hooters of America, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00722 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2024). In this Title VII systemic lawsuit alleging that following a mass layoff due to COVID-19 in March 2020, the EEOC alleged that the Greensboro, North Carolina location of a national restaurant chain known for wings, sports, and “Hooters Girls” violated Title VII by failing to recall and/or rehire Charging Party and other females because of their race (Black) and/or color (dark skin tone), and subjected them to less favorable treatment. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $250,000 and significant injunctive relief, including a provision that prohibits Hooters from making such employment decisions using standards that allow for subjective determinations based on race or color.
EEOC v. Kanes Furniture, LLC d/b/a Kane’s Furniture, No. 8:23-cv-02067 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2025). In this Title VII pattern-or-practice sex discrimination lawsuit, the EEOC alleged a retail company refused to hire female applicants for driver and warehouse positions, and recruiters expressly screened women out of the hiring process for positions in numerous departments. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $1.4 million and significant injunctive relief, including hiring an independent expert to oversee training, investigate and review complaints of sex discrimination, and ensure compliance with the terms of the consent decree.
EEOC v. TKO Construction Services, No. 0:23-cv-03010 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2025). In this Title VII and ADEA systemic lawsuit against a Minnesota staffing company that provides temporary employees for commercial, residential, restoration, heavy industrial and energy construction companies, the EEOC alleged that an employee, who worked for TKO as a recruiter, was told by TKO employees that the company did not hire women for construction jobs, Black workers in certain areas, or individuals who were over 40 years old, because some clients supposedly did not want them. The recruiter later spoke with TKO’s president, who allegedly confirmed that it was TKO’s practice not to hire women, Black workers and older workers, according to client preferences or requests. The lawsuit alleged that TKO failed to recruit, hire, assign or refer a class of aggrieved individuals for employment because of their sex, race, and age, resulting in fewer referrals, fewer hours, and less pay for those employees discriminated against. The suit also alleged the recruiter was constructively discharged because she was expected by TKO to engage in unlawful conduct. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $300,000 and significant injunctive relief, including a requirement that TKO must use objective, job-related criteria in hiring decisions going forward, and provide training on anti-discrimination laws to employees involved in the hiring and recruitment process.
EEOC v. Security Engineers, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01213 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 10, 2025). In this Title VII pattern-or-practice sex discrimination lawsuit against a contract security solutions provider throughout Alabama, the EEOC alleged that a class of women were denied security officer employment opportunities notwithstanding their security, law enforcement, or military experience, based on discriminatory directives not to select or schedule females for security positions or assignments. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $1.6 million and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Allen Theatres, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00965 (D.N.M. Apr. 10, 2025). In this systemic ADEA suit against company that operates chain of movie theaters across New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, the EEOC alleged the company president forced a theater manager to retire because he was 73 years old. The suit also alleged class discrimination based on a companywide compensation policy that stopped paying for family health insurance coverage once employees reached 65 years old and became eligible for Medicare. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $250,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Bigfoot Energy Services LLC and Iron Mountain Energy LLC, No. 2:24-cv-02361 (E.D. La. May 30, 2025). In this systemic Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that two oil field service companies operating as a single employer, engaged in race and sex discrimination, including race- and sex-based harassment, and retaliation. The suit alleged that the companies’ employees, including management, frequently used the “n-word” and other racially derogatory terms when referring to Black employees. Additionally, the companies failed to remedy the conduct of male employees who frequently engaged in sexually demeaning conduct, including sharing demeaning pornographic images of women and making sexually offensive comments. The day after a male truck driver complained about the sexually harassing conduct, he was fired. Other drivers were fired within days of complaining about workplace use of the “n-word.” The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $697,500 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Western Distributing Company, No. 1:16-cv-01727 (D. Colo. Jul. 15, 2025). In this systemic ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a corporate conglomerate consisting of at least 15 companies discriminated against individuals with disabilities, mostly over-the-road truck drivers, through a full-duty (100% healed) policy requiring individuals to be released from any medical restrictions in order to work, regardless of whether the individual could work with a reasonable accommodation, and a policy of firing employees if they could not return from FMLA leave within 12 weeks, even if they could have returned with a short extension or other accommodation. Following a split jury verdict in the suit, the 4-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $919,000 in monetary relief and significant injunctive relief, including requirements that Western have mandatory ADA training, hire a monitor to oversee and report further acts of discrimination to the EEOC, and conduct annual validation of its physical requirements for its drivers.
EEOC v. Landmark Dodge, Inc. et al., No. 4:22-cv-00614 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 27, 2025). In this systemic Title VII sex discrimination lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that owners of automobile dealerships had a policy of refusing to hire women for sales jobs and men for office jobs and retaliated against two new human resources employees who opposed the practice. The suit alleged that the owner told the two HR employees that he believed women don’t make good salespeople and men don’t work well in the office, and the two employees then discovered the company’s hiring managers were in fact refusing to hire women for car sales positions and men for pre-sales, cashier, clerical, and other office positions. The suit also alleged that when the HR employees opposed the practice and insisted on consideration of all qualified job applicants regardless of sex, they were retaliated against with an increasingly hostile work environment and then were constructively discharged. Company records showed that from the fall of 2017 through at least April 2019, Landmark Dodge hired no women for sales positions and no men for the office jobs. During the lawsuit, the EEOC identified more than a dozen women and men Landmark Dodge refused to hire because of their sex. The 5-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $275,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida, LLC, No. 0:23-61744 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2025). In this ADEA pattern-or-practice lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a car rental company failed to hire candidates aged 40 or older for its management trainee position from at least 2019 to the present. While approximately 15% of the applications the company received for the position were submitted by applicants aged 40 or above, these workers represented fewer than 3% of all hires. The EEOC identified over 125 witnesses who could testify that they were asked their age or graduation year during the interview process; were told by company hiring officials that most candidates were fresh out of college; were discouraged from pursuing the position; or were subjected to other age-related comments. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $1.8 million for the class of older applicants and significant injunctive relief, including required implementation of new ADEA policies, yearly ADEA training, and maintaining an Ethics Hotline, which can be found on the company’s webpage in the Code of Conduct, where all applicants and employees can report complaints of discrimination.

C. Other District Court Resolutions

Selected non-systemic FY 2025 resolutions include:

EEOC v. Lago Mar Properties, Inc. d/b/a Lago Mar Beach Resort & Club, No. 0:24-cv-61812 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 11, 2024). In this suit brought under the PWFA and the ADA, the EEOC alleged a line cook at a beachfront hotel resort was unlawfully denied a six-week leave of absence to recover from a stillbirth and then fired. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $100,000 and significant injunctive relief, including that Lago Mar appoint an EEO coordinator and revise its employment policies to ensure employees are provided reasonable accommodations required under the PWFA and ADA.
EEOC v. Center One, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv-01242 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2024). In this Title VII religious accommodation suit against consumer debt collection services companies, the EEOC alleged an employee was unlawfully denied scheduling accommodations for religious observances. Following a favorable Third Circuit ruling in the case holding that an employer’s insistence on clergy verification of a religious practice as a condition of providing scheduling accommodation was at odds with the law and could also give rise to constructive discharge, the case was resolved by an 18-month consent decree securing $60,000 and significant injunctive relief, including a provision specifically barring defendants from requiring that employees provide a certification from a religious leader, organization, or group as a general precondition for obtaining religious accommodation.
EEOC v. Cinergy Entertainment Group, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00763 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2024). In this Title VII suit against a company operating multiple cinema and entertainment centers around the country, the EEOC alleged that a former employee was retaliated against when she applied to work for the company a year after her termination as a bartender, and a company vice president told her she was not eligible for rehire because she had filed a previous pregnancy discrimination charge with EEOC. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $137,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01807 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2024). In this Title VII sexual harassment suit, the EEOC alleged that a Utah-based airline permitted a sexually hostile work environment in which a female employee in its Parts and Maintenance Division was subjected to frequent sexual comments, requests to perform demeaning sex acts, and jokes about rape. The EEOC obtained a favorable jury verdict of more than $2 million, reduced to the maximum $300,000 damages cap, and secured significant injunctive relief ordered by the court in its post-trial ruling, including ordering that SkyWest create and distribute a protocol for investigating complaints of harassment, and conduct annual training for its DFW Airport employees and those responsible for its DFW employee relations.
EEOC v. Thomas B. Finan Center, Maryland Dep’t of Health, No. 1:22-cv-02407 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2024). In this Equal Pay Act suit against a psychiatric facility, the EEOC alleged that four female recreational therapists were paid less than male counterparts with less tenure and less experience. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $270,000 and significant injunctive relief. Among other provisions, the decree requires defendant to increase the employees’ compensation to what they should have been earning, to account for this adjustment retroactively, and to adjust their pensions accordingly, and also requires defendant to provide at least two hours of live remote training for human resources and management officials involved in compensation decisions.
EEOC v. Castle Hills Master Ass’n Inc., Bright Realty LLC, Bright Inds. LLC, and Bright Executive Servs. LLC, No. 4:24-cv-00871 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2024). In this ADA lawsuit against three property management companies, the EEOC alleged a pregnant resident coordinator was denied leave as a reasonable accommodation and was then fired after she was hospitalized and prescribed bedrest due to placenta previa, a pregnancy-related disability. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $55,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-02438 (D. Colo. Dec. 31, 2024). In this Title VII suit against United Airlines for hostile work environment harassment based on race and national origin, the EEOC alleged an Asian American transportation agent (driver) of Mongolian ancestry was harassed at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic—when Asian Americans and those of Asian descent experienced public hostility and violence because of their race and/or ethnicity based on a common misconception that Asians caused the virus or pandemic. The suit alleged the airline allowed the driver to be called by a racial slur, physically assaulted, and have his employment with the airline threatened, and that the airline delayed investigating the employee’s internal harassment complaint even though it included claims of physical violence. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $99,000 and significant injunctive relief, including that the airline will modify its workplace violence policy to provide that investigations of actual or threatened physical violence are initiated within 72 hours of the notice of complaint.
EEOC v. Prestigious Placement, Inc., and Prosero, Inc., d/b/a Qobalt, d/b/a Spinnaker Management Group, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02568 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 2, 2025). In this class Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged a temporary agency and its client, operating as an integrated enterprise or joint employers, subjected female warehouse workers to hostile work environment sexual harassment when a male lead employed by Prosero subjected female employees placed by Prestigious Placement to unwelcome sexual comments. The suit also alleged that when two of the female employees complained to supervisors about the harassment, they were ignored, and that Prosero later retaliatorily fired the employees for pretextual performance reasons. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $215,000 and significant injunctive relief, including dissemination to all employees of the names, job titles, work hours, locations, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of supervisory or management staff to whom employees should direct any reports of harassment or retaliation, and designation of at least two supervisory/management employees as investigative officers for harassment allegations.
EEOC v. Northern Virginia Surgery Center, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01721 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2025). In this disability and age discrimination lawsuit filed under the ADA and the ADEA, the EEOC alleged that when an older radiologic technologist requested an extension of her medical leave to recover from carpel tunnel surgery, the outpatient surgery center where she was employed denied her request and instead terminated her, replacing her with two significantly younger and less-qualified co-workers. The EEOC alleged that the termination and replacement occurred while the employee was still on approved medical leave. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $50,000 and significant injunctive relief, including that defendant is required to incorporate a statement into its revised policies that there is no set maximum amount of medical leave and that it will engage in an interactive process when considering reasonable accommodation requests for medical leave or extensions.
EEOC v. Pace Southeast Michigan, No. 2:24-cv-12424 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 17, 2025). In this class ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a company providing all-inclusive care for the elderly maintained a policy that treated any circumstance where an employee was unable to return to work following the expiration of FMLA-allowed leave as a “voluntary resignation,” resulting in termination. Two employees each requested a brief leave extension of three weeks or less to return to work following the expiration of FMLA leave and provided supporting medical documentation showing they would have been qualified with these disability-related leave extensions. PACE allegedly refused to consider the requests and instead fired the employees. Replacements for the employees were not hired until well after the employees would have been able to return to work. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $170,000 and significant injunctive relief. Among other provisions, the decree requires PACE to train its human resources employees on ADA compliance, and to develop policies on return from leave and reasonable accommodation (including examples of additional leave as a reasonable accommodation, as well as a statement that employees concluding FMLA leave may request an extension of leave as a reasonable accommodation, with an explanation of the steps to follow).
EEOC v. Goodsell/Wilkins, Inc., No. 8:22-cv-01765 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2025). In this Title VII national origin harassment lawsuit against a construction company, the EEOC alleged a class of Hispanic workers were subjected to unaddressed harassment by supervisors, leads, and coworkers based on their race or national origin, including being referred to as “wetbacks” and “Home Depoteros,” in Spanish, as well as sexually explicit threats meant to pressure them to work faster and harder, and retaliation for complaining of the harassment. The 4-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $730,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Alliance Ground International, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-14302 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2025). In this ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that an air cargo and logistics company refused to hire a qualified deaf applicant because of his disability and failed to consider any reasonable workplace accommodations. The applicant, who sought a mail agent warehouse position, had extensive relevant work experience and an excellent work safety record. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $70,000 and significant injunctive relief, including ADA training for employees involved in the hiring process and ensuring a procedure for addressing disability accommodation requests in a timely and effective manner.
EEOC v. LeoPalace Guam Corp. d/b/a LeoPalace Resort, No. 1:25-cv-00004 (D. Guam Feb. 19, 2025). In this national origin discrimination lawsuit under Title VII against LeoPalace, a major hotel and resort in Guam, the EEOC sought relief for non-Japanese employees, including multiple former employees of American national origin, who were provided less favorable wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment compared to employees from Japan. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $1.4 million for the aggrieved individuals and significant injunctive relief to prevent and remedy unlawful foreign preference national origin discrimination.
EEOC v. HHS Environmental Servs., LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00721 (D. Utah Mar. 13, 2025). In this class Title VII hostile work environment harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge lawsuit against a company that provides janitorial and other services to hospitals nationwide, the EEOC alleged a group of female housekeepers were repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by a male employee, who made inappropriate sexual comments and frequently attempted to inappropriately kiss, touch, and grab the female employees without their permission. The EEOC alleged the company took no action for over a year to curb the harassment despite multiple complaints, and that it retaliated against female employees who complained by firing two of them and retaliating against a third female victim by doubling her workload until she eventually resigned due to the untenable working conditions. The consent decree resolving the suit secured $400,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 5:23-cv-00623 (S.D. W.Va. Mar. 18, 2025). In this class Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that the former manager of a Walmart Supercenter subjected female employees to sexual harassment that included unwelcome and offensive sexual touching, requests for sexual acts in exchange for money or favorable treatment at work, requests that female workers expose their breasts, and made crude sexual innuendos. The suit alleged that notwithstanding multiple complaints about his conduct, defendant failed to stop it and retaliatorily terminated an employee who opposed the harassment and filed a discrimination charge. The consent decree resolving the suit secured $415,112 for the class of affected female employees and significant injunctive relief, including prohibiting rehire of the former store manager at any Walmart store, and requiring specialized training on conducting sexual harassment investigations.
EEOC v. Chipotle Services, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02439 (D. Kan. Mar. 28, 2025). In this individual Title VII lawsuit, the St. Louis District Office alleged that a Chipotle restaurant supervisor engaged in religious harassment of a teenage employee who is a devout Muslim and wears a head covering in observance of her faith. The suit alleged the supervisor repeatedly asked her to remove her hijab and expose her hair, and when she rebuffed the requests and explained the religious significance of the hijab, he again pressured her to remove the hijab, and he grabbed at it and partially removed it himself. The suit also alleged she was retaliated against for reporting the incident. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $20,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-06848 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2025). In this individual Title VII racial harassment and constructive discharge lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a Black yard worker employed by a vehicle auctioneer company faced racial harassment by coworkers, including repeated racial slurs. The suit alleged local managers were aware of the misconduct, but either ignored it or otherwise failed to take adequate steps to address it, and the employee was ultimately forced to quit because of the racial harassment. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $175,000 and significant injunctive relief, including a requirement that Auto Auctions appoint an internal individual or organization as an EEO Consultant to assist with its Title VII and decree compliance, including policy revisions and training for supervisors and managers on investigative techniques for racial harassment investigations.
EEOC v. Bennett Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Ralphie’s Sports Eatery, No. 1:23-cv-01758 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2025). In this individual Title VII and ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a restaurant company subjected a server, who is a biracial woman with a diagnosis of anxiety and depression, to racial harassment, disability discrimination, denial of reasonable accommodation, and reprisal. The suit alleged her direct supervisor used racial slurs and other derogatory terms, and that after the restaurant learned of the server’s disability, she was denied a promotion, suspended and then fired. After she filed an EEOC charge alleging race and disability discrimination, the company refused to hire her at a different location, telling her that it could not offer her the position because she had an active EEOC charge. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $125,000 and significant injunctive relief, including mandatory live Title VII and ADA training for management, corporate officers, and those with any responsibility for providing human resources services on harassment investigative techniques, such as identification of potential witnesses (including former employees or others), interviewing techniques, the significance of corroborative testimonial or documentary evidence, investigative confidentiality, and post-investigation monitoring and auditing procedures.
EEOC v. Heart of Texas Goodwill Industries, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00498 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2025). In this individual ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a Texas-based non-profit retailer refused to consider an applicant who is deaf for a production team member position. The suit alleged that a manager told the applicant that she was not eligible for a position because she could not speak or hear, and that those were requirements of the job. The applicant allegedly asked the manager whether she could be accommodated, including through use of a cellphone to communicate, and informed the manager that she had worked in an identical position at another Goodwill store. The manager told the applicant she would talk to the human resources department to see what could be done, but no one followed up with the applicant and she was not hired for the role. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $75,000 and significant injunctive relief. Among other provisions, the decree enjoins defendant from denying employment to qualified individuals because of their inability to speak and/or hear, requires providing applicants who are deaf or hard of hearing an opportunity to specify a preferred method of communication—including sign language interpretation—during the application process, and must ensure that any communication requirement included in a current or future job description for any position is an essential function for that position and subject to reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
EEOC v. The Results Cos., LLC, No. 7:24-00128 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2025). In this ADA suit against Florida-based business services outsourcing firm, the EEOC alleged a telephonic customer service representative who is blind was hired to work from a call center and then unlawfully denied the request she made after accepting the position to use screen reader software as a reasonable accommodation. The suit alleged that the firm refused the employee’s suggestion that the company contact her vocational counselor and the publisher of her screen reader software to request technical assistance and then fired her because she needed reasonable accommodation. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $250,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. The Princess Martha LLC et al., No. 8:22-cv-02182 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2025) (judgment on jury verdict entered), ruling on remittitur and other post-trial motions, 2026 WL 83977 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2026). In this ADA suit, the EEOC alleged that defendants failed to accommodate a job applicant for the activities coordinator position at their Florida senior living facility after she informed them that she was a veteran taking medication to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that her medication would cause her to fail a required drug test. Defendants made no effort to accommodate her disability and revoked her job offer when she failed the drug test. The jury found that the two other defendants were an integrated enterprise with The Princess Martha, and awarded a total of $405,083, which included $350,000 in punitive damages. In a subsequent 2026 ruling on defendant’s post-trial motions, the court found that the verdict was supported by the trial record, including evidence that the defendant made knowingly false statements to the EEOC during the administrative investigation and failed to properly train management officials on the ADA and reasonable accommodations; however, the jury’s compensatory and punitive damages award was reduced to the statutory cap. The court also issued a 5-year judgment of injunctive relief against defendants and any successors that requires, among other provisions, training repeated for three years by a subject matter expert for all HR officials, managers, directors, department heads, or anyone involved in hiring; a detailed ADA policy with provisions requested by EEOC; and, inclusion in job postings and job advertisements of an email address for requesting an accommodation during the application and interviewing process.
EEOC v. Comforts of Home Holdings, LLC, et al., No. 0:25-cv-00059 (D. Minn. May 13, 2025). In this Title VII pregnancy discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a newly-promoted assisted living activities coordinator was constructively discharged after she disclosed her pregnancy and a manager said her pregnancy was “going to be a problem,” demanded to know why she had not disclosed it before her promotion, threatened to demote her, and engaged in a campaign of excessive and heightened scrutiny of her work. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured over $73,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. 1901 South Lamar, LLC d/b/a Corner Bar et al., No. 1:23-cv-00539 (W.D. Tex. May 16, 2025). In this Title VII pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that when a bartender became visibly pregnant, her employer reduced her work hours, and when she was later hospitalized for a virus, her manager called her and fired her, telling her she was becoming too much of a liability and that there was a fear something bad would happen to her if she continued working. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $42,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Bob’s Tire Co., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-10077 (D. Mass. Jun. 5, 2025). In this class Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that the owner and a co-worker at a used tire scrap and recycling facility subjected Hispanic laborers to egregious and constant harassment, which included inappropriate and unlawful comments, gestures, and slurs relating to sex, national origin and race. The suit alleged that at least one employee complained to the owner about the harassment but, instead of taking remedial action, the owner retaliated against the complaining employee, mocking him with false statements that the employee was in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with the harassing co-worker, effectively condoning the illegal harassment in the workplace. The suit raised claims of harassment based on sex, race, and national origin, as well as retaliation. The 42-month consent decree resolving the suit secured $250,000 for a settlement fund for Charging Party and eligible claimants, to be paid as determined by the EEOC, and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Waste Pro of Florida, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01132 (M.D. Fla. Jun. 25, 2025). In this Title VII racial harassment case, the EEOC alleged a class of Black and/or Haitian American sanitation workers in Jacksonville were subjected to frequent, severe racial and national origin harassment that management refused to correct, including being called by racial slurs and epithets, including the “n-word,” “boy” and “monkey” and told to “go back to Haiti on the banana boat,” and were assigned worse routes and trucks based on race. In addition, during an anti-discrimination training, management allegedly refused to remove a stuffed monkey that had been placed in the work area of an employee who had complained about the race discrimination. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $1.4 million and significant injunctive relief, including specialized training on race discrimination for Waste Pro’s CEO and human resources employees to ensure they are aware of their obligations to prevent workplace discrimination and how to address complaints, and appointment of an outside compliance officer to oversee the investigation of any race discrimination complaints Waste Pro receives at any of its locations throughout Florida.
EEOC v. Venetian Las Vegas Gaming, LLC et al., No. 2:25-cv-01148 (D. Nev. Jul. 1, 2025). In this class Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that entities doing business as the Venetian Resort Las Vegas, a hotel and casino resort on the Las Vegas Strip, unlawfully denied employees of a diversity of faiths requested accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs, absent undue hardship, and retaliated against employees who complained. In some instances, the denials of accommodation led to discipline, denial of promotion opportunities, and discharge or constructive discharge. The 3-year consent decreed resolving the suit secured $850,000 for affected employees and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Frontier Hot-Dip Galvanizing, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00691 (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 18, 2025). In this class Title VII lawsuit raising claims of race and national origin discrimination as well as retaliation, the EEOC alleged that a steel galvanizing business subjected a class of Black temporary and permanent workers to race- and national origin-based harassment, including routine use of egregious racial slurs (e.g., the N-word, “monkey,” and “coon”) and harassing comments based on national origin (e.g., “terrorist” and “go back to Africa”), as well as racially offensive graffiti in the workplace. The company failed to address the hostile work environment even after receiving complaints. Instead, when two workers complained and then filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC, Frontier threatened and fired them. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $360,000 for a claims fund as well as significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02477 (D. Md. Jul. 21, 2025). In this individual Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a nationwide broadcasting company subjected a Black female employed as a financial analyst, to unlawful pay discrimination and was constructively discharged because of her race. Despite her strong work performance at the company, she was undercompensated compared to other analysts. When she reported the pay disparity to her manager and to human resources at Sinclair, the company refused to adjust her salary to remedy the unequal pay. The 18-month consent decree resolving the suit secured $100,000 and significant injunctive relief. Among other provisions, the decree requires the company to maintain nondiscrimination and antiretaliation policies that include a statement that the company does not prohibit employees from discussing or disclosing their compensation.
EEOC v. Polaris Inds., No. 5:24-cv-01305 (N.D. Ala. Jul. 23, 2025). In this PWFA suit against a vehicle manufacturer, the EEOC alleged an employee was penalized for pregnancy-related absences and medical appointments rather than granted leave as a reasonable accommodation and was required to work mandatory overtime despite her physician’s direction that she not work more than 40 hours per week during her pregnancy. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $55,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00881 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 31, 2025). In this class Title VII racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit against one of the largest crane service providers in North America, the EEOC alleged four Black employees were subjected to a hostile work environment by their co-workers and supervisors, including frequent use of racial slurs, as well as open display of nooses and other white supremacist symbols. The suit also alleged that a white coworker witness was retaliated against for reporting the harassment to company managers and human resources. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $525,000 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Criswell Chevrolet, Inc., No. 8:25-cv-01632 (D. Md. Aug 12, 2025). In this individual ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that an automobile dealership unlawfully denied reasonable accommodation to allow a worker with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to have a service dog with him at work, resulting in his constructive discharge. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $30,000 and significant injunctive relief, including developing and disseminating an ADA reasonable accommodation policy and providing no less than one hour of training for all human resources or other personnel designated by defendant to receive, assess, grant, or deny reasonable accommodation requests. The training must be presented by an attorney, human resources professional, or similar professional with expertise in ADA compliance and who is approved by the EEOC.
EEOC v. BWW Resources, LLC d/b/a Buffalo Wild Wings, No. 1:24-cv-03581 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 18, 2025). In this Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged an applicant for a restaurant server position was not hired because she wore long skirts when in public based on her sincerely held religious beliefs. The suit alleged that the general manager mocked the applicant’s religious beliefs and failed to interview her or otherwise contact her regarding the open position, and an assistant manager said the restaurant would not hire her because it was unusual for servers to wear long skirts in a sports bar. The suit further alleged that the location did not hire the applicant yet hired five servers within two months of her application. The 2-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $47,500 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. Logic Staffing, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-01557 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 19, 2025). In this Title VII lawsuit against a staffing and recruiting agency, the EEOC alleged a Muslim job applicant was refused hire after he asked about a religious accommodation to attend Friday prayer. Although the applicant said he would not need additional time if his workplace was close to a mosque, the supervisor ended the interview and noted that the applicant was not hired due to his schedule and need to attend Friday prayer. The 4-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $217,500 and significant injunctive relief.
EEOC v. East Jordan Plastics, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-12302 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 3, 2025). In this class Title VII lawsuit against a manufacturer of plastic horticultural containers, the EEOC alleged that a class of female employees at the manufacturer’s Beaverton, Michigan location was sexually harassed by a male co-worker, whose conduct included offensive sexual comments and inappropriate touching. Despite being made aware of the harassment through at least two complaints from different women, the company took no disciplinary action against the harasser. The suit alleged that the harassing conduct continued until yet another female employee complained, following which the company finally conducted interviews and terminated the male employee. The 3-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $460,000 and significant injunctive relief. Among other provisions, the decree specifically enjoins the company from failing to investigate internal complaints of sexual harassment.
EEOC v. Interventional Pain Management Assocs., PLLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-03040 (W.D. Ark. Sep. 5, 2025). In this Title VII retaliation suit against a pain management clinic and a hospital, the EEOC alleged an employee was fired in retaliation for opposing the sexual harassment of a medical technician by a physician. The employee’s protected activity included confirming the allegations to human resources, including the physician’s sexually explicit text messages shown to her by the technician. The 4-year consent decree resolving the suit secured $350,000 and significant injunctive relief.

D. Selected Decisions in Appellate and Amicus Cases

In addition to its nationwide litigation program at the district court level, OGC represents the agency in federal courts of appeals, and participates as amicus curiae in private actions in federal courts of appeals and, on occasion, in federal district courts and state courts. Notable appellate and amicus decisions in FY 2025 include:

Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. 303 (2025). In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule is inconsistent with Title VII’s text and the Court’s longstanding precedents construing the statute. In doing so, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General—appearing on behalf of the United States and the EEOC—that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) applies equally to discrimination against any individual, whether a member of a minority or majority group, and that the McDonnell Douglas framework’s evidentiary standards do not vary depending on a plaintiff’s race, sex, or other protected characteristics. As acknowledged in the Court’s opinion, the EEOC has consistently taken this colorblind, group-neutral position for at least 50 years.
EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC, 142 F.4th 1122 (8th Cir. 2025). This case involved Victor Robinson, who is deaf, and wanted to be a commercial truck driver. He satisfied the federal physical-qualification standards for commercial truck drivers, graduated from truck-driving school, and obtained a commercial license. Defendant Werner refused to hire him because, it said, it could not safely train a deaf driver. After EEOC brought an ADA discrimination suit, the district court granted partial summary judgment to the EEOC on Werner’s undue-hardship and direct-threat affirmative defenses and issued favorable evidentiary rulings prior to trial, and, at the close of EEOC’s case, granted a partial directed verdict to EEOC on the element of causation. The jury found for EEOC and awarded $75,000 in compensatory damages and $36,000,000 in punitive damages. The district court later awarded back pay and injunctive relief, and reduced damages to conform to the statutory caps. Werner appealed, challenging the summary judgment and evidentiary rulings, a jury instruction, the court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, and the relief awarded.

In a published, unanimous decision, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court of appeals first rejected Werner’s challenge to the partial directed verdict on causation, explaining that “there was no evidence from which a jury could conclude that Robinson was rejected for any reason aside from his deafness given the direct evidence of discrimination.” The court highlighted the evidence that Werner told Robinson, “No, I’m sorry, we can’t hire you because of your deafness.” The court next held the grant of summary judgment to the EEOC on the undue hardship and direct threat affirmative defenses was proper. On undue hardship, the court held that Werner’s “failure to provide any evidence as to how the accommodation [of providing Robinson non-verbal cues during his training] would affect its business as a whole is fatal to its challenge on appeal.” On direct threat, the court concluded that Werner failed to conduct the individualized analysis necessary to establish the defense. Instead, a Werner official “just made a few general calls to back up her ‘prejudice, stereotypes, [and] unfounded fear’ of allowing a deaf individual to drive a Werner truck.” The Eighth Circuit also found no abuse of discretion by the district court when it admitted evidence of other trucking companies’ accommodations for deaf truck drivers. The court held this evidence of “other companies’ policies and their ability to train deaf drivers was directly relevant to whether Robinson’s proposed accommodation was reasonable.” The Eighth Circuit held that the district court correctly rejected Werner’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, noting that Robinson was qualified for the position because he had a valid hearing-requirement waiver at the time he applied for the position with Werner, and the accommodation Robinson sought (using hand signals to communicate) did not eliminate an essential function of the position. The court of appeals also affirmed on the question of whether the defendants had acted with malice or reckless indifference and it affirmed the award of injunctive relief, observing that, “[g]iven Werner’s intentional discrimination, lack of good faith, and previous lack of record-keeping for deaf applicants, the injunction serves the public by requiring Werner to report deaf applicants directly rather than allowing Werner to wait until a victim of discrimination approaches the EEOC,” adding that “the injunction might actually deter Werner from future discrimination.”
EEOC v. BNSF Railway Co., 150 F.4th 948 (8th Cir. 2025). The EEOC filed suit on behalf of Rena Merker, a train conductor, and a group of similarly aggrieved women. The EEOC alleged that the women experienced severe or pervasive sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, including unwelcome sexual advances, aggressive behavior when they rejected the advances, derogatory comments, sexual graffiti, and restrooms that male coworkers deliberately vandalized with urine and feces for the purpose of harassing the women. The district court dismissed the claim on behalf of the similarly aggrieved women, holding that the EEOC did not plead the class size nor did it plead that the class suffered the same harassment as Merker. It then granted summary judgment on the individual claim on the ground that the EEOC had inadequately pleaded that Merker experienced severe or pervasive harassment.

The Eighth Circuit reversed both rulings. It held that the district court had established too high a pleading standard for the class allegations because the EEOC need not plead “that all the female employees … suffered similar acts of discrimination by the same actors during the same time frame.” Nor must the EEOC provide factual allegations for every member of the class. “At the pleading stage,” the court held, “EEOC is not yet required to identify each individual.” Noting that the EEOC had provided group allegations as well as information on four anonymous exemplars, the court held that the complaint stated a claim on behalf of the group that was plausible on its face. The Eighth Circuit also held that the district court had erred by requiring the EEOC to plead more detail about the number of claimants. Questioning the district court’s reliance on EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, the court noted that CRST involved conciliation negotiations and does not necessarily govern pleading requirements. And even if the EEOC did need to plead more, EEOC adequately did so here by limiting its claims “in geography, position, and time.” With respect to the individual allegations, the Eighth Circuit agreed with the EEOC that there is a fact issue as to whether the harassment Merker experienced was sufficiently severe or pervasive. In particular, the court said, “We decline to excuse this graffiti because it was displayed at a male-dominated workplace” and it went on to note that “[w]omen working in primarily male-dominated trades are often the ones who most need Title VII’s protection.”
In re AAM Holding Corp., 153 F.4th 252 (2d Cir. 2025). In a published opinion, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court order enforcing the EEOC’s administrative subpoenas in In re: AAM Holding Corp. The underlying charge alleged sex-based harassment affecting dancers at two adult entertainment clubs (FlashDancers). The EEOC subpoenaed information on other employees at those clubs, including their names, addresses, phone numbers, ages, and races. FlashDancers refused to provide any identifying pedigree information. After the EEOC petitioned for subpoena enforcement, the district court ordered FlashDancers to comply. FlashDancers appealed, arguing that the information the EEOC sought was not relevant, compliance with the subpoena would cause an undue burden, and the charging party’s subsequent private lawsuit extinguished the EEOC’s ability to investigate the charge.

The Second Circuit affirmed. First, it held that the EEOC may continue to investigate a charge after it issues a right-to-sue notice and the charging party files a private lawsuit. Examining the text and structure of Title VII, the court reasoned that the statute does not set a “strict temporal limit” on the EEOC’s ability to subpoena information and that the subpoena power continues “through the enforcement process at least for a reasonable time.” The court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s pre-Waffle House holding in EEOC v. Hearst Corp. and joined the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in holding that “EEOC retains its full authority to investigate after it issues a right-to-sue notice to the charging party and the charging party files a lawsuit.” Turning to relevance and burden, the court held that pedigree information, including co-workers’ race and age from before and after the charging party’s dates of employment, satisfied its “generous view of relevance in the context of EEOC investigations.” It noted that the “broad allegations of a widespread pattern or practice of sexual harassment” appropriately led the district court to “conclude[] that employees who worked at the clubs at or around the time [the charging party] worked there are reasonably likely to have information about the alleged discriminatory practices.” On burden, the court rejected FlashDancers’ argument that the district court should have weighed the degree of relevance again as part of the undue burden analysis. It then held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no undue burden based on FlashDancers’ assertion that it would take 300 hours to produce the pedigree information.
Meza v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 144 F.4th 1115 (8th Cir. 2025). In a unanimous, published opinion, the Eighth Circuit reversed an award of summary judgment to the employer in this ADA case. David Meza alleged that Union Pacific imposed a five-year work restriction on him because it regarded him as having an impairment after he suffered serious brain injuries in a motorcycle accident. Union Pacific argued it imposed the work restrictions because he had a future risk of seizures as a result of his injuries, not because he had any current impairment. The district court granted summary judgment to Union Pacific, holding that Meza had not shown that Union Pacific perceived him as having an impairment.

The EEOC filed an amicus brief to argue that a jury could find Union Pacific did regard Meza as having an impairment. We pointed out evidence that Meza’s injuries had caused physiological changes to his neurological system and explained that Union Pacific imposed work restrictions because of those changes or its perception of those changes. We also distinguished the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Morriss v. BNSF Railway Co., in which the Eighth Circuit held that the employer there could rely on future safety concerns arising from the plaintiff’s obesity without violating the ADA. Morriss, we argued, turned on the Eighth Circuit’s determination that the plaintiff’s obesity was a physical characteristic, not an impairment.

The Eighth Circuit agreed with the EEOC that a reasonable jury could find that Union Pacific believed that Meza had an impairment. It noted that Union Pacific’s medical examiner “discussed a chemical alteration and injury to Meza’s brain that would result in an ongoing, unacceptably increased risk for seizures.” Emphasizing that it did not matter if Meza actually had an impairment, the court held that it was enough that “Union Pacific may have thought” he did. Id. Consistent with the EEOC’s amicus brief, the Eighth Circuit distinguished Morriss as involving only a physical characteristic that may lead to an impairment, while a jury could find that “the perceived brain changes here could qualify as an existing physical impairment.” The Eighth Circuit then remanded for further proceedings, including the possibility that the district court could grant summary judgment based on whether Meza was qualified under the ADA or on Union Pacific’s direct threat defense.
Smith v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc., 154 F.4th 375 (6th Cir. 2025). In this Title VII case, the plaintiffs alleged that their supervisors discriminated against them and harassed them because of their race. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims. In relevant part, the court held that supervisors calling the African-American plaintiffs “monkey ass,” as well as belittling, criticizing, and threatening them, was neither necessarily “based on race” nor sufficiently “severe or pervasive” to alter the terms or conditions of their employment. The court also refused to consider the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning discrete employment actions as part of its hostile work environment analysis and held, sua sponte, that the comparators the plaintiffs identified were improper because the plaintiffs described them as “white” rather than establishing that they were “non-African American.” The court also refused to accept the plaintiffs’ eyewitness testimony about their comparators’ race.

The EEOC filed an amicus brief advancing three primary arguments in favor of reversal. We first argued that, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, a reasonable jury could find that supervisors directing the “monkey ass” slur at plaintiffs as part of a broader pattern of verbal abuse constitutes actionable race-based harassment. We also argued that the court erred in discounting a supervisor’s use of the slur because he was of the same race as the plaintiffs. Next, we explained that the court erred in stating that discrete employment-related actions cannot, as a matter of law, contribute to a hostile work environment. Last, we argued that plaintiffs’ identification of white comparators was appropriate to show that the harassment they experienced was based on their race, and further, that the plaintiffs’ perception of their comparators’ race constituted admissible evidence.

In a published opinion that largely tracked the EEOC’s arguments, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Court first rejected the district court’s contention that “monkey” and “monkey-ass” could not be considered race-based slurs, holding that the supervisors’ direct and repeated use of the terms “raises a reasonable ‘inference of discrimination on the basis of’ race.” Even if these terms were “not overtly racial in isolation,” their use directed at African Americans “suffices to show race-based harassment at the summary judgment stage.” The Court also dismissed as “frivolous” defendant’s argument that “monkey ass” meaningfully differs from “monkey” in this context. And the Court explicitly rejected the notion that the “racist nature of the terms” is “automatically obviated” simply because the speaker is also African American. Nor were plaintiffs required to show that the supervisors used the terms only to refer to African Americans. Many of the citations and specific quotations the Court used in support of these conclusions appeared in our brief.

Next, the Court rejected as “deeply flawed” the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs failed to prove their prima facie case in part because their identified comparators were merely “white,” which was “not synonymous” with “non-African American.” The Court explained that “we have often used ‘African American’ and ‘Black’ interchangeably and compared ‘African Americans’ with ‘whites,” and that “well-established caselaw recogniz[es] ‘Black’ and ‘white’ as racial identities.” By rejecting plaintiffs’ “testimony of disparate, race-based treatment grounded in experience and perception,” requiring “evidence of a comparator’s racial self-identification or genetic composition,” and relying on “its own narrow conception of racial identity, unsupported by any legal authorities,” the district court erred.

The Court also held that a reasonable jury could find the plaintiffs’ comparative evidence of “verbal mistreatment” and other “unfavorable employment-related actions,” though “purportedly race-neutral,” constituted evidence of racial harassment when considered in conjunction with the supervisors’ use of racial slurs; the district court erred in concluding otherwise. Here, too, the Court’s opinion included a number of arguments and citations contained in the EEOC’s brief.

The Court next held that the plaintiffs met their burden of showing the race-based harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to survive summary judgment. “Even standing alone,” the Court explained, the supervisors’ use of “race-specific and derogatory terms very likely suffices to show severe or pervasive racial harassment.” Particularly when considered in conjunction with the other evidence of harassment, “a reasonable jury could find … that [plaintiffs] were subjected to recurring, severe, and humiliating racial harassment that unreasonably interfered with their employment.” In concluding otherwise, and particularly by failing to evaluate “the work environment as a whole,” the district court erred. Again, this analysis largely tracked the EEOC’s brief.

Finally, the Court held that the defendant could not establish an affirmative defense because it could not show that it took “reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any racially harassing behavior.”
Lucas v. AFGE, 151 F.4th 370 (D.C. Cir. 2025). In a published opinion, a split panel of the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s Title VII and ADA claims against her federal-employee unions for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff, a former federal employee, generally alleged that her local union president sexually harassed her and then retaliated when she complained, that her national union took no action to remedy the harassment despite her complaints, and that the unions otherwise discriminated against her on the basis of sex and disability. She thus filed this action asserting claims for sex- and disability-related discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court noted that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) governs labor relations in federal employment and gives the Federal Labor Relations Authority (the Authority) exclusive jurisdiction over “unfair representation” claims against federal-employee unions. The court further noted that the plaintiff had previously pursued unfair representation claims against her unions before the Authority. The court concluded that because the plaintiff’s Title VII and ADA claims were premised on the same underlying conduct, they likewise were “properly characterized” as unfair representation claims and thus fell within the Authority’s exclusive jurisdiction.

The EEOC filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiff to address two issues. First, we argued that the district court’s jurisdictional ruling was mistaken. Under a correct understanding of the respective statutes, we explained, federal courts may properly exercise jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s Title VII or ADA claims against a federal-employee union even when those claims are premised on conduct that could also support an unfair representation claim under the CSRA. Second, addressing the unions’ argument below, we argued that Title VII and the ADA prohibit unions from harassing their members or failing to remedy their agents’ harassment of members. For these reasons, we urged the D.C. Circuit to reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The panel majority reversed the district court’s jurisdictional dismissal of the plaintiff’s Title VII and ADA claims. Consistent with our arguments, the majority held that federal law does not preclude plaintiffs from bringing their discrimination claims against federal-employee unions in district court. The court explained that both Title VII and ADA expressly permit claims against labor organizations and that courts have long held that private-sector employees can bring Title VII and ADA claims in district court even if they overlap with claims before the National Labor Relations Board. Moreover, the court noted, the remedies for Title VII and ADA claims are far more robust than those available for federal unfair representation claims, and “[i]t is particularly implausible that Congress would so drastically curtail federal employees’ protections from discrimination by their unions without ever saying it was doing so.”

As the court continued its analysis, it repeatedly noted with approval arguments the EEOC had advanced about distinctions between duty-of-fair-representation claims under the CSRA and discrimination claims under Title VII and the ADA. In particular, it highlighted the ways that the substantive coverage of fair representation claims differs from Title VII and ADA discrimination claims. While the court did not expressly adopt our description of the differences in coverage, it noted that we raised “serious and unanswered questions” and that those questions favor finding the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims. Turning to precedent, the court explained that earlier cases holding that the Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over union members’ claims dealt with statutes different in kind from Title VII and ADA. They typically involved general or catchall statutes, like the Administrative Procedure Act, while Title VII and the ADA “address the specific evils of invidious discrimination . . . rather than labor-management relations writ large.” The court also disagreed with the district court’s emphasis on the factual similarity between the plaintiff’s earlier filed unfair labor practice charges and her discrimination lawsuit. In doing so, the court held that an employee’s decision to file unfair labor practice charges first did not affect the district court’s jurisdiction.

III. Litigation Statistics

A. Overview of Suits Filed

In FY 2025, EEOC’s field legal units filed 94 merits lawsuits (92 employment discrimination lawsuits and two lawsuits challenging the breach of a conciliation agreement). Merits suits include direct suits and interventions alleging violations of the substantive provisions of the Commission’s statutes, and suits to enforce settlements reached during EEOC’s administrative process. Six filings were systemic suits, and 29 were non-systemic suits that sought relief for multiple individuals. The field legal units also filed 13 actions to enforce subpoenas issued during EEOC charge investigations.

1. Filing Authority

From 1996 to 2021, the Commission delegated litigation filing authority to the General Counsel in all but a few areas, through the EEOC’s National Enforcement Plan (adopted in February 1996) and then again through its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2017-2021. Early in fiscal year 2021, the Commission instituted a process by which all district office litigation recommendations are either submitted for a Commission vote or reviewed by the EEOC Commissioners for a five-day period to determine which recommendations require a vote by the Commission. On January 22, 2026, the Commission instituted a process requiring a Commission vote to commence all merits litigation, except that the EEOC General Counsel will retain delegated litigation authority in limited circumstances, including during a loss of a Commission quorum. The chart below shows the number of merits suits filed during fiscal year 2025 under the then-applicable procedures that were authorized by the General Counsel following review by the Commission and the number approved by a Commission vote.

FY 2025 Suit Authority
	Count	Percent of Suits
General Counsel	84	89.4%
Commission	10	10.6%

2. Statutes Invoked

Of the 94 merits suits filed, 57.4% contained Title VII claims, 37.2% contained ADA claims, 9.6% contained ADEA claims, 7.4% contained PWFA claims, 0% contained EPA claims, 0% contained GINA claims, and 10.6% were filed under more than one statute. (Statute numbers in the chart below exceed the number of suits filed and percentages total over 100 because suits filed under multiple statutes (“concurrent” cases) are included in the totals of suits filed under each of the statutes.)

Merit Filings in FY 2025 by Statute
	Count	Percent of Suits
Title VII	54	57.4%
ADA	35	37.2%
ADEA	9	9.6%
PWFA	7	7.4%
EPA	0	0 %
GINA	0	0%
Concurrent	10	10.6%

3. Bases Alleged

As shown in the next chart, sex and/or pregnancy (comprised of all Title VII sex discrimination claims, including pregnancy-based, as well as all PWFA claims), disability, retaliation, and race were the most frequently alleged discriminatory bases in EEOC lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2025. Bases numbers in the chart exceed the total suit filings because suits often contain multiple bases.

FY 2025 Bases Alleged in Suits Filed
	Count	Percent of Suits
Sex and/or Pregnancy[2]	42	44.7%
Disability	35	37.2%
Retaliation	31	33%
Religion	10	10.6%
Age	8[3]	8.5%
Race	2	2.1%
National Origin	2	2.1%
Color	0	0 %
GINA	0	0 %

4. Issues Alleged

As shown in the chart below, discharge (including constructive discharge) was by far the most frequently alleged issue in the EEOC lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2025, followed by harassment, reasonable accommodation (based on disability, pregnancy, and/or religion), hiring, and terms and conditions.

FY 2025 Issues Alleged in Suits Filed
	Count	Percent of Suits
Discharge (including Constructive Discharge)	64	67%
Reasonable Accommodation	40	42.6%
Harassment (including Sexual Harassment)	29	30.9%
Terms and Conditions	18	19.1%
Hiring	16	17%
Other Issues	10	10.6%
Discipline	5	5.3%
Assignment	4	4.3 %
Qualification Standards	4	4.3 %
Prohibited Medical Inquiry/Exam	3	3.2%
Recordkeeping Violation	3	3.2%
Benefits	2	2.1%
Promotion	2	2.1%
Wages and Compensation	2	2.1%

B. Suits Filed by Bases and Issues

1. Sex and/or Pregnancy Discrimination

As shown below, discharge (including constructive discharge) and harassment allegations were most often raised in the 42 sex and/or pregnancy discrimination lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2025. These statistics include all sex discrimination claims brought under Title VII, including but not limited to Title VII pregnancy discrimination claims, and also all claims (other than for retaliation) brought under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

Sex and/or Pregnancy Discrimination Issues
	Count	Percent of Suits
Discharge (including Constructive Discharge)	23	54.8%
Harassment (including Sexual Harassment)	23	54.8%
Reasonable Accommodation	8	19.0%
Hiring	7	16.7%
Terms and Conditions	6	14.3%
Other Issues	4	9.5%
Assignment	2	4.8%
Recordkeeping Violation	2	4.8%
Promotion	1	2.4%
Leave-Involuntary	1	2.4%
Testing	1	2.4%

2. Race Discrimination

As shown in the next chart, harassment, terms and conditions, and wages/compensation were raised in the two race discrimination suits filed in fiscal year 2025.

Race Discrimination Issues
	Count	Percent of Suits
Harassment	1	50%
Terms and Conditions	1	50%
Wages and Compensation	1	50%

3. National Origin Discrimination

Terms and conditions, wages/compensation, and benefits claims were raised in the two national origin discrimination lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2025.

National Origin Discrimination Issues
	Count	Percent of Suits
Terms and Conditions	2	100%
Wages and Compensation	2	100%
Benefits	1	50%

4. Religious Discrimination

As shown in the chart below, reasonable accommodation and discharge (including constructive discharge) claims were raised in the 10 religious discrimination lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2025.

Religious Discrimination Issues
	Count	Percent of Suits
Reasonable Accommodation	8	80%
Discharge (including Constructive Discharge)	7	70%
Discipline	1	10%
Suspension	1	10%
Other Issues	1	10%

5. Age Discrimination

As shown in the chart below, terms and conditions, discharge (including constructive discharge), harassment, and hiring claims were raised in the nine age discrimination lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2025.

Age Discrimination Issues
	Count	Percent of Suits
Terms and Conditions	4	44.4%
Discharge (including Constructive Discharge)	4	44.4%
Harassment	2	22.2%
Hiring	2	22.2%
Benefits	1	11.1%
Promotion	1	11.1%
Recordkeeping Violation	1	11.1%

6. Disability Discrimination

Failure to accommodate, discharge (including constructive discharge), and hiring were the most frequent claims raised in the 35 disability lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2025.

Disability Discrimination Issues
	Count	Percent of Suits
Reasonable Accommodation	24	68.6%
Discharge (including Constructive Discharge)	21	60.0%
Hiring	9	25.7%
Terms and Conditions	6	17.1%
Qualifications Standards	4	11.4%
Other Issues	4	11.4%
Harassment	3	8.6%
Prohibited Medical Inquiry/Exam	3	8.6%
Assignment	2	5.7%
Breach of Confidentiality	1	2.9%

7. Retaliation

Discharge and constructive discharge were by far the most frequent allegations in the 31 lawsuits filed in FY 2025 raising retaliation claims.

Retaliation Issues
	Count	Percent of Suits
Discharge (including Constructive Discharge)	22	70.9%
Harassment	5	16.1%
Discipline	4	12.9%
Other Issues	2	6.5%
Assignment	1	3.2%
Demotion	1	3.2%

C. Bases Alleged in Suits Filed from FY 2020 through FY 2025

The table below shows the bases on which EEOC suits were filed over the last six years.

FY	Sex	Sex-Preg.*	Race	Color	Nat’l Orgin	Relig.	Disab.	Genetic Info	Age	Retal.
2021	37.9%	6.9%	17.2%	0.9%	4.3%	4.3%	34.5%	0.0%	2.6%	37.1%
2022	42.9%	6.6%	18.7%	1.1%	6.6%	3.3%	29.7%	0.0%	6.6%	35.2%
2023	35.0%	5.6%	16.8%	2.1%	5.6%	7.0%	34.3%	0.7%	8.4%	39.2%
2024	50.4%	8.1%	13.5%	1.8%	5.4%	2.7%	43.2%	1.8%	6.3%	38.7%
2025	29.7%	16%	2.1%	0%	2.1%	10.6%	37.2%	0%	8.5%	33%

*Note that lawsuits including claims of pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and/or the PWFA are included here under “Sex-Pregnancy” (for FY 2024, when the first PWFA suits were filed, and FY 2025).

D. Suits Resolved

In FY 2025, the Office of General Counsel resolved 120 merits lawsuits, obtaining $26,986,883 in monetary relief for an estimated 2505 individuals.

1. Types of Resolution

As the next chart indicates, 91.2% of the EEOC’s suit resolutions were settlements, 8.8% (or 10 cases) were judgments on the merits by district courts or juries, 6 of which were favorable to the EEOC (including two default judgments). The figures on favorable and unfavorable court orders do not take appeals or voluntary dismissals without prejudice into account.

FY 2025 Types of Resolutions
	Count	Percent of Suits
Settlements	103	91.2%
Unfavorable Court Order	4	3.5%
Favorable Court Order	6	5.3%

2. Monetary Relief by Statute

Of the 120 merits suits resolved, 64.2% contained Title VII claims, and 38.3% contained ADA claims. Statute numbers in the chart below exceed the number of suits resolved and the percentages total over 100 because suits resolved under multiple statutes (“concurrent” cases) are also included in the totals of suits resolved under each statute.

FY 2025 Resolutions by Statute
	Count	Percent of Suits
Title VII	77	64.2%
ADA	46	38.3%
ADEA	4	3.3%
PWFA	3	2.5%
EPA	2	1.7%
GINA	0	0%
Concurrent	12	10%

As shown in the next chart, Title VII suits accounted for the great majority of the monetary relief obtained in FY 2025, while ADA suits accounted for about 14.9%. Recoveries in concurrent suits are not included in the totals for the particular statutes; for example, relief obtained in suits that raised claims under both the PWFA and Title VII are only included under the concurrent total.

FY 2025 Monetary Relief by Statute (rounded)
	Relief (millions)	Relief (percent)
Title VII	$19.26	72.3%
ADA	$3.96	14.9%
ADEA	$2.05	7.7%
PWFA	$0.05	0.2%
EPA	$0.27	1.0%
Concurrent	$1.04	3.9%

E. Appellate Activity

OGC filed nine briefs on appeal in Commission cases in FY 2025, seven as appellant and two as appellee. OGC filed 14 briefs as amicus curiae in private suits, all of which were approved prior to the loss of a Commission quorum. No Commission cases required Supreme Court briefing. EEOC prevailed in two of two merits cases decided on appeal in FY 2025. At the end of FY 2025, EEOC had six cases pending in courts of appeals in enforcement actions and was amicus curiae in ten pending cases.

F. Attorney’s Fees Awards

In FY 2025, the EEOC was not ordered to pay attorney fees under the “prevailing party” provision of Title VII (incorporated into ADA, GINA, and PWFA), the attorney fee provision of the EPA, or the Equal Access to Justice Act (applicable to government claims under ADEA).

G. Resources

1. Staffing

As shown in the chart, the number of field attorneys decreased from last fiscal year.

OGC Staffing (On Board)
Year	Appellate Attorneys*	Field Attorneys*
2021	12	175
2022	12	181
2023	13	210
2024	12	186
2025	11	159

*Appellate Attorney numbers include Supervisory Appellate Attorneys and General Attorneys, and Field Attorney numbers include Regional Attorneys, Assistant Regional Attorneys, Supervisory Trial Attorneys, and Trial Attorneys.

2. Litigation Budget

EEOC’s litigation funding allocation for FY 2025 increased over FY 2024.

Litigation Support Funding (Millions)
Year	Funding
2021	$3.72
2022	$2.60
2023	$2.84
2024	$3.48
2025	$2.01

H. EEOC 10-Year Litigation History: FY 2016 through FY 2025

	FY16	FY17	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24	FY25
All Suits Filed	114	201	217	157	97	124	93	158	142	107
Merits Suits	86	184	199	144	93	116	91	143	111	94
Suits with Title VII Claims	46	107	111	87	59	71	62	92	66	54
Suits with ADA Claims	36	76	84	55	32	43	27	49	48	35
Suits with ADEA Claims	2	12	10	7	7	4	7	12	7	9
Suits with PWFA Claims	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0	5	7
Suits with EPA Claims	5	11	5	7	1	3	6	3	2	0
Suits with GINA Claims	2	3	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	0
Suits filed under multiple statutes[4]	5	24	10	12	6	5	11	14	18	10
Subpoena and Preliminary Relief Actions	28	17	18	13	4	8	2	15	13	13
All Resolutions	171	125	156	180	175	141	100	104	159	132
Merits Suits	139	109	141	173	164	137	96	98	132	120
Suits with Title VII Claims	84	57	82	96	98	91	58	53	77	77
Suits with ADA Claims	48	48	55	78	57	40	39	31	54	46
Suits with ADEA Claims	12	3	10	6	11	10	5	5	13	4
Suits with PWFA Claims	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	5	3
Suits with EPA Claims	7	4	9	6	5	6	0	2	2	0
Suits with GINA Claims	4	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	3	0
Suits filed under multiple statutes	16	4	16	13	8	10	6	7	17	12
Subpoena and Preliminary Relief Actions	32	16	15	7	11	4	4	6	14	8
Monetary Benefits ($ in millions)[5]	52.2	42.3	53.6	39.1	106.2	33.8	39.7	22.6	40.4	26.64
Title VII	36.8	21.7	21.5	25.8	72.6	28.0	34.0	16.5	22.4	19.26
ADA	12.1	7.1	21.8	8.5	15.7	3.1	4.0	3.8	7.9	3.96
ADEA	.94	12.1	3.9	0.9	16.3	1.2	0.7	0.8	3.2	2.05
PWFA	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.05
EPA	.04	0.2	0.1	0.2	0.016	0.2	0	0.5	0.1	0.27
GINA	0	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Suits filed under multiple statutes	2.3	1.1	6.3	3.7	1.5	1.3	1.0	1.0	6.8	1.04

*Note: Suits filed and resolved under multiple statutes are also included in the tally of suits under the particular statutes.

[1] Throughout this report, the designation “sex and/or pregnancy” includes all sex discrimination claims brought under Title VII, including but not limited to Title VII pregnancy discrimination claims, and all claims (other than for retaliation) brought under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

[2] As previously noted, throughout this report the designation “sex and/or pregnancy” includes all sex discrimination claims brought under Title VII, including but not limited to Title VII pregnancy discrimination claims, and all claims (other than for retaliation) brought under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

[3] Although nine ADEA lawsuits were filed in fiscal year 2025, one of those suits raised only retaliation, not age, as the basis.

[4] The sum of the statute benefits in some years will be different from total benefits for the year due to rounding.

[5] Monetary benefits recovered in suits filed under multiple statutes are counted separately and are not included in the tally of suits filed under the particular statutes.