EEOC Escalates Enforcement Against DEI Policies

On November 20, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it was asking a federal court to compel a private employer to disclose details about its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, pursuant to an administrative subpoena the agency had issued.

This is the first known instance of EEOC issuing a subpoena in an investigation of a charge alleging illegal DEI activities.

The EEOC issued the subpoena as part of its investigation into claims by a Northwestern Mutual employee who alleged that he and other employees were denied promotion opportunities because of the company’s alleged “illegal” DEI policy. Alleging Title VII discrimination, the employee asserts that the employer’s DEI practices provided “additional support and opportunities for women and people of color” and that the company adopted metrics encouraging the promotion of those groups. He contends that these practices resulted in discrimination against him based on his “race (White), sex (male), color, and national origin (American-Irish).” He also alleges that he was retaliated against for raising concerns about the DEI policy and its effect on advancement.

As part of its investigation, the EEOC requested that Northwestern Mutual produce documents related to the company’s DEI initiatives and make available for an interview the Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion. Northwestern Mutual offered limited general corporate information regarding the department in which the complaining employee worked, but categorically objected to most of the requests for information on grounds that the investigation was being conducted in bad faith and with no sworn charges presented, among other reasons. The company also objected to the interview request.

In response, the EEOC issued an administrative subpoena to which Northwestern Mutual responded by petitioning the EEOC to revoke the subpoena, asserting, among other things, that Section 713 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides employers with a safe harbor when they act in good faith and in reliance on any written EEOC guidance, and that DEI programs were, until a few months ago, endorsed “(and in some instances demanded)” by the EEOC.

The EEOC denied the petition, eliciting a letter dated October 6 from Northwestern Mutual rescinding its objection to interview its corporate DEI officer, repeating an offer to pursue alternative dispute resolution, but otherwise reiterating its objections to the investigation and the subpoena. The EEOC responded by taking the matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to compel compliance.

In a 13-page memorandum filed on November 21, the EEOC argued that it had the authority to subpoena the DEI-related documents and that they are relevant to the agency’s investigation. Addressing Northwestern Mutual’s overbreadth objection, the EEOC argued that its requests included narrowing descriptors—such as complaints regarding DEI programs, “training offered on the basis of race, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation,” and DEI reports and strategy documents. Ignoring the company’s offer to make the Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion available for an interview, EEOC further argued that, even though the Vice President was not involved in the employment decisions at issue, her interview would still be relevant to understanding how Northwestern Mutual’s DEI policies operated and whether those policies could have led to discriminatory actions. Finally, EEOC asserted that Northwestern Mutual’s disagreement with the EEOC’s perspective on DEI does not justify withholding information.

Enforcement Priority: Eliminating DEI

This enforcement action by the EEOC aligns with the Trump administration’s broader efforts to discourage employment practices tied to DEI initiatives. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has prioritized scrutiny of employers’ DEI policies nationwide, seeking to identify “illegal DEI” that violates federal anti-discrimination laws by disadvantaging majority groups. Consistent with that focus, in March, the EEOC and the U.S. Department of Justice jointly released technical assistance documents addressing their position on potentially unlawful workplace DEI practices. These publications assert that Title VII violations can occur when a DEI policy disproportionately disadvantages members of a majority group.

What This Means for Employers

It is important to note that, although the EEOC is taking a more aggressive approach to allegations of “reverse discrimination” (which claims were made easier by the Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio; see our discussion here), the underlying laws have not changed. Preferential employment practices based on a characteristic covered by Title VII have always been unlawful under Title VII. Any company policy that creates a preference or otherwise discriminates based on a protected characteristic may expose the employer to employee claims or EEOC action.

If the court grants the EEOC’s motion to compel Northwestern Mutual’s compliance with the subpoena, the decision will serve as a warning that allegations of discriminatory DEI practices may allow the government to examine an employer’s DEI initiatives in great detail. This may include interviewing executives involved in developing or overseeing DEI policies and programs. Given this, employers should evaluate their DEI programs to ensure they do not provide preferential treatment in hiring or any other employment decisions. Employers should also train personnel responsible for administering DEI initiatives to ensure that facially neutral policies are not being applied in a manner that results in discriminatory employment decisions.

Staff Attorney Elizabeth A. Ledkovsky contributed to the preparation of this article.