EEOC Adopts New National Enforcement Plan for FY 2025–2029: Key Implications for Nonprofit Employers
On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted a new National Enforcement Plan for fiscal years 2025–2029 and rescinded its prior Strategic Enforcement Plan. The new plan identifies the matters the agency intends to prioritize in its outreach, investigations, conciliation efforts, and litigation. For nonprofit employers, the plan signals a meaningful shift in enforcement emphasis, particularly with respect to intentional discrimination, DEI-related employment practices, religious accommodation, and sex-based workplace issues.
What changed under the EEOC’s new enforcement plan
The prior plan emphasized systemic barriers, disparate impact, and protections for underserved worker populations. The new plan is narrower and more explicit about the Commission’s current policy priorities. It places greater weight on intentional discrimination, identifies several DEI-related practices as enforcement targets, emphasizes religious liberty and certain sex-based workplace issues, and states that the Commission will align its enforcement discretion with current executive branch policy.
1. Disparate impact is no longer a core EEOC enforcement tool.
The plan states that the agency will eliminate disparate impact (facially neutral policies that produce discriminatory outcomes) theories in investigations “to the maximum degree possible” and will not pursue litigation advancing disparate impact claims. That is a significant enforcement shift. It does not eliminate disparate impact law, but it does indicate that the EEOC is less likely to prioritize facially neutral policies based principally on statistical disparities alone.
2. DEI-related employment practices are an express enforcement priority.
The plan identifies DEI-related race and sex discrimination as a priority and specifically references practices the agency may scrutinize, including quotas, diverse slate requirements, diverse hiring panel requirements, diversity statements, race- or sex-conscious evaluation tools, demographic data sharing outside HR or legal channels, and compensation incentives tied to demographic goals. It also identifies restrictions on access to internships, fellowships, mentorship, sponsorship, training, bonuses, and other opportunities based on protected characteristics. For nonprofit employers, the legal risk will turn less on how these initiatives are described and more on how they operate in practice.
3. Religious liberty and accommodation remain prominent priorities.
The plan expressly highlights workers’ religious liberty rights and identifies Groff v. DeJoy as an area for continued enforcement development. Employers that have not revisited their religious accommodation processes since Groff should do so. In many cases, the primary weakness will not be the existence of a policy, but the absence of a disciplined and well-documented decision-making process.
4. Sex-based workplace issues are also an express priority.
The plan highlights development of law concerning single-sex spaces, the scope of Bostock, and employees’ and employers’ rights concerning expression of the binary nature of sex. Employers should read this as a signal that sex-based workplace policies and disputes may receive closer scrutiny.
5. The Commission has expressly tied enforcement priorities to current executive branch policy.
The plan states that the agency will use its enforcement discretion to advance the Administration’s policy objectives and comply with relevant executive orders. That statement is notable. It suggests that enforcement priorities may track broader administration priorities more closely than under prior plans.
6. The plan is also intended to shape the law.
The EEOC expressly identifies cases involving recent Supreme Court precedent and unresolved statutory interpretation as priorities, including matters involving Ames, Muldrow, Students for Fair Admissions, Groff, Bostock, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The plan therefore serves not only as an enforcement roadmap, but also as a signal about the types of cases the agency may use to influence doctrine.
What stayed the same: EEOC Enforcement Priorities that remain in place
Notwithstanding these shifts, several established priorities remain in place. The plan continues to emphasize retaliation, repeated or overt discrimination, facially discriminatory policies, systemic harassment, mass denials of accommodations, and protections for vulnerable workers. It also continues to prioritize matters affecting the integrity of the EEOC’s enforcement process, including access to information, subpoena enforcement, settlement breaches, and certain recordkeeping violations. The underlying statutes have not changed; what has changed is where the agency is likely to focus additional attention and resources.
The Chair’s stated priorities reinforce that shift. In addition to DEI-related race and sex discrimination and religious liberty, the plan expressly identifies anti-American national origin discrimination and disputes involving single-sex spaces and sex-based expression. Those priorities help explain where the agency may seek to bring cases with broader policy or precedential significance.
What nonprofit employers should do now
Nonprofit employers should not respond to the new plan with symbolic rollbacks or reflexive changes. They should, however, review current employment practices to identify areas where legal risk may have increased under the EEOC’s revised enforcement framework.
Start with hiring, promotion, internships, fellowships, mentorship programs, training opportunities, sponsorship, bonuses, and compensation incentives. If your organization uses diverse slate requirements, diverse hiring panels, demographic targets, diversity statements, identity-based program access, leadership metrics tied to representation goals, or candidate evaluation tools that take protected characteristics into account, review how those practices are written and how they operate in practice. The question is no longer just whether the policy reflects institutional values. The question is whether it can be characterized as making employment decisions based on protected characteristics. In the EEOC’s eyes, the language behind these employment practices should focus on equal opportunity, not diversity.
Next, look at the overlap between employment practices and external compliance expectations. Nonprofits with federal funding, education-sector exposure, or detailed grant commitments may be operating under frameworks that were encouraged a short time ago but now create risk from another angle. That does not mean those obligations disappear. It means legal, HR, and leadership need to assess them together rather than treating program compliance and employment compliance as separate silos.
Also review sex-based workplace policies and national-origin risk points that may have been treated as peripheral before. That includes access rules for sex-segregated spaces, internal guidance touching sex-based expression, and hiring or recruiting practices that could be framed as favoring visa holders, PERM applicants, or other groups in ways the agency now views as suspect.
Finally, revisit religious accommodation. If managers are still applying pre-Groff instincts or handling requests informally, fix that now. A stronger process, clearer escalation path, and better documentation will matter more than a policy sitting untouched in a handbook.
Bottom line for nonprofit boards and executive directors
The practical implication is not that nonprofit employers must rebuild their employment systems from the ground up. It is that they should identify which current practices now fall into a higher-risk category and decide, deliberately, whether those practices remain justified and sustainable in this enforcement environment.
For many organizations, this is as much a governance issue as a legal one. Where boards have adopted DEI commitments or other employment-adjacent equity goals, leadership should understand how those commitments translate into operational decisions and where the resulting legal pressure points now lie. It is better to address those questions through deliberate review now than in the course of responding to a charge.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice specific to your organization's situation, contact Commonlight Legal LLP.
Alex Booker is the Managing Partner of Commonlight Legal LLP, a boutique law firm serving nonprofits in Massachusetts, DC, New York, and Connecticut. He advises executive directors and boards on employment law, governance, and general nonprofit counsel.
Before founding Commonlight, Alex adjudicated federal employment cases at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, where he researched and advised on novel issues in federal personnel law, and he litigated whistleblower, wage and hour, and civil rights cases on behalf of employees at a DC employment firm. He is admitted to practice in Massachusetts and Washington, DC.