EEOC Scrutiny: The History Behind DEI’s Decline
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
On December 19, 2025, a headline from Reuters sent a chill through the corporate world and Black communities alike. Andrea Lucas, the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), announced that the agency plans tougher scrutiny of corporate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs (robinsonbradshaw.com). Lucas, who President Donald Trump elevated to Chair earlier this year, explicitly warned that there is no exception to federal anti-discrimination laws for diversity initiatives (robinsonbradshaw.com). For many Black workers, this statement signals the dismantling of the few guardrails that have protected them from systemic bias in the workplace.
The anxiety among Black professionals is palpable. This shift represents more than just a change in policy; it is the culmination of a decades-long legal and political battle. To understand why this moment feels so heavy, one must look at the history behind the headlines. The rules that once encouraged companies to balance their workforce are now being used to dismantle those very efforts. As the government pivots from encouraging diversity to enforcing a strict interpretation of colorblindness, the landscape of American labor is shifting beneath the feet of Black employees.
Source: Resume.org Survey Data (2025)
The Roots of Title VII and Affirmative Action
To understand the current conflict, one must return to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (eeoc.gov). Originally, the law served as a tool to open doors for historically excluded groups. It was a legislative acknowledgement that Black workers faced barriers that white workers did not. For nearly two decades following its passage, the legal system recognized that achieving true equality might require proactive measures.
In the late 1970s and 80s, the Supreme Court carved out a narrow space for voluntary affirmative action. In the landmark case United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979), the Court ruled that Title VII did not prohibit all private, voluntary, race-conscious plans (lipplawfirm.com). The Court established a test: such plans were legal if they aimed to eliminate a “manifest racial imbalance” in traditionally segregated jobs (lipplawfirm.com). This legal precedent allowed companies to look at their workforce, see that Black people were absent from leadership, and create a plan to fix it.
This period represented a time when the law understood the difference between exclusion and remediation. The goal was to correct the legacy of labor struggles that had kept Black workers in the lowest-paid positions for generations. However, the legal justification for these programs was always delicate. It relied on the idea that companies were fixing a specific problem caused by past discrimination, not just trying to create a diverse team for its own sake.
From Remedying Wrongs to Boosting Profits
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, corporate America shifted its language. Fearing the stigma of “affirmative action” and facing a more conservative judiciary, companies began framing these programs as “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) (investopedia.com). The justification moved from legal reasons, such as fixing past wrongs, to economic reasons, known as the “business case.” Companies argued that diverse teams were more innovative and profitable (finimize.com).
Consultants and researchers produced data supporting this shift. Studies showed that companies with diverse management teams had higher revenues due to innovation (finimize.com). Forbes research found that diverse teams made better business decisions 87 percent of the time (finimize.com). This approach made DEI popular in the boardroom. It allowed executives to talk about diversity without admitting to past racism. However, it created a legal vulnerability. The Supreme Court had never explicitly ruled that “promoting business diversity” was a valid defense for race-based hiring under Title VII.
This vulnerability remained largely unexposed until the racial justice protests of 2020. Following the murder of George Floyd, there was a massive expansion of corporate DEI pledges (diversiq.com). Companies rushed to announce hiring targets for Black executives. While this seemed like progress, it placed corporations on shaky legal ground. By decoupling diversity from the remedial purpose of the Weber decision, companies left themselves open to the challenge that they were simply picking winners and losers based on race.
The Legal Turning Point: 2023 to 2025
The legal ground shifted seismically in June 2023, when the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard. While the case technically applied to college admissions under Title VI, its logic—that eliminating discrimination means eliminating all of it—was immediately weaponized against corporate America (robinsonbradshaw.com). Andrea Lucas, then an EEOC Commissioner, penned op-eds warning companies that the old precedents might no longer save them (robinsonbradshaw.com). She argued that many modern DEI programs constituted illegal discrimination against non-minorities.
The situation intensified in 2025. With the return of the Trump administration, the federal government’s posture shifted from encouraging diversity to enforcing colorblindness. In June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (eeoc.gov). This decision made it easier for majority-group plaintiffs (white employees) to prove discrimination without needing to show “background circumstances” that would justify such a claim (eeoc.gov). This effectively removed a hurdle that had previously kept some “reverse discrimination” cases out of court.
These legal changes have empowered groups like America First Legal to sue major corporations (robinsonbradshaw.com). They accuse companies of anti-white and anti-male bias in their diversity targets. Consequently, the EEOC has seen a rise in complaints alleging “reverse discrimination” (eeoc.gov). The agency, under Lucas’s leadership, has deprioritized “disparate impact” cases—which often reveal systemic bias against minorities—to focus on “intentional discrimination,” a category that now frequently includes challenges to DEI initiatives (poweratwork.us).
Despite comprising 12.4% of the population, Black representation in corporate power remains stagnant. Source: DiversIQ (2024)
The Retreat of Corporate America
The “tougher scrutiny” Lucas announced is already reflected in the data. Fear of litigation has caused a quiet but rapid retreat from diversity commitments. In 2025, one in five companies eliminated their DEI programs entirely (resume.org). According to a Resume.org survey, nearly 50 percent of companies cutting DEI cited “political climate changes” as the primary driver (resume.org). This indicates that the dismantling of these programs is a reaction to external pressure rather than a business decision.
Furthermore, one in eight companies slashed their DEI budgets for 2025 (resume.org). The timing suggests a direct correlation with the shifting political landscape. Companies are risk-averse entities. When the EEOC Chair says that diversity programs are “fraught with legal peril” (eeoc.gov), corporate legal teams advise executives to pull back. The result is that the programs designed to help Black workers navigate economic challenges are vanishing exactly when they are needed most.
This retreat has halted the brief progress made after 2020. As of 2024, Black directors held only 11.9 percent of S&P 500 board seats (diversiq.com). In the top 100 corporate C-suites (the highest executive level), Black executives accounted for just 4.9 percent of roles (diversiq.com). This figure is far below the 12.4 percent Black share of the U.S. population. The stagnation suggests that without intentional effort, the natural drift of corporate hiring does not favor diversity.
Understanding the EEOC’s Power
To fully grasp the threat, one must understand what the EEOC actually does. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal law enforcement agency. It investigates charges of discrimination against employers (eeoc.gov). If the agency finds reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred, it can file lawsuits directly against employers in federal court (eeoc.gov). In Fiscal Year 2023 alone, the EEOC filed 143 lawsuits, a significant increase from the previous year (eeoc.gov).
The agency also secures significant monetary relief. Through litigation, the EEOC secured over $22 million for victims in 2023 (eeoc.gov). When combined with administrative enforcement, such as mediation, the total recovery for workers exceeded $440 million (eeoc.gov). When the Chair of this agency says they plan “tougher scrutiny” of DEI, it means they have the resources and the legal authority to back it up. They can launch investigations that cost companies millions in legal fees and bad publicity.
Under the new leadership, the agency is signaling that it will use these powers to police “reverse discrimination” as aggressively as it polices traditional bias (eeoc.gov). This creates a paradox where the agency created to enforce the Civil Rights Act is now the primary regulator restricting the methods used to achieve civil rights in the workplace. This shift is particularly concerning for Black families who rely on fair employment practices to build intergenerational wealth.
The EEOC has ramped up litigation capacity, increasing lawsuits filed by over 50% in a single year. Source: EEOC Performance Report (2023)
Conclusion: The Colorblind Wall
The headline “EEOC plans tougher scrutiny” is not just a policy shift; it is the closing of a chapter in American history. The “remedial” window opened by Weber in 1979 is being hammered shut by the “colorblind” logic of the 2023 SFFA decision and the 2025 Ames ruling. For Black workers, the fear is not just about fewer guardrails. It is the realization that the very laws designed to integrate the workplace are now being interpreted to dismantle the programs meant to achieve that integration.
As 2026 approaches, the tension between legal enforcement and the reality of racial disparity in corporate leadership will likely become a defining conflict. With the EEOC now actively scrutinizing diversity efforts, companies will have to decide whether to fight for their programs or abandon them to avoid litigation. For the Black community, this means navigating a corporate environment that is increasingly hostile to the recognition of race, even as racial disparities remain undeniably present. The future of Black politics and labor will largely depend on how the community organizes to meet this new legal reality.
About the Author
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.
