The EEOC has replaced its 2024-2028 Strategic Enforcement Plan with a new National Enforcement Plan for 2025-2029. The change is more than cosmetic. It reflects a significant shift in what the agency believes its mission should be.

To be clear, intentional discrimination against anyone because of race, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, or any other protected characteristic is unlawful. Full stop. Title VII protects everyone. An employer cannot justify discrimination simply because it occurs in the name of diversity, equity, or inclusion.

But that's not really the story here.

The story is what the EEOC has chosen to prioritize.

The agency's stated Chair Priorities now include "remedying DEI-related race and sex discrimination," "protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination," "defending women's rights to single-sex spaces at work and workers' rights to express the binary nature of sex," and protecting religious liberty and religious accommodations. The plan also repeatedly identifies DEI programs, hiring initiatives, and workplace diversity practices as enforcement targets.

None of these issues fall outside the EEOC's jurisdiction. If an employer intentionally discriminates based on race, sex, religion, or national origin, the agency should investigate. The question is whether elevating these issues to the agency's highest enforcement priorities reflects a neutral assessment of workplace discrimination or a political response to the culture-war issues dominating today's headlines.

The most revealing sentence in the entire document may be the one few employers will notice. The EEOC expressly states that it will use its enforcement authority "to advance the Administration's policy objectives."

That's an astonishing admission. The EEOC was not created to advance presidential policy objectives. It was created to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws. Those are not always the same thing.

Every administration leaves its fingerprints on federal agencies. That's politics. But this plan reads less like a neutral enforcement roadmap and more like a political document designed to reassure the White House that the agency is aligned with its culture-war priorities.

For most of its history, the EEOC has focused its resources on combating discrimination that has historically excluded and marginalized workers from equal employment opportunity. This plan does not abandon that mission outright. But it unmistakably shifts the agency's attention toward issues that have become central to the current Administration's political agenda.

An EEOC focused on rooting out discrimination wherever it exists is fulfilling its statutory mission. An EEOC focused on advancing the political objectives of its boss is something very different.

What should employers do? Don't overreact, but don't ignore the signal. Review DEI initiatives for legal compliance. Ensure accommodation processes work effectively for both disability and religious requests. Revisit policies addressing sex-segregated facilities, pronoun usage, and employee expression. Most importantly, continue making employment decisions based on qualifications, performance, and business needs—not politics.

Administrations change. Enforcement priorities change. The law changes more slowly. Smart employers should keep their focus there.

The World Cup kicks off on June 11, and plenty of matches will be played during the workday. (June 17, I'm looking at you. Portugal vs. DR Congo starts at 1 p.m. ET, followed by England vs. Croatia just three hours later.)

Ohio's new AI Ethics Guide for Lawyers is worth reading.

"[O]nly AI tools offered with adequate security measures and other confidentiality safeguards should be used when client-related information is disclosed (or information possibly leading to the identity of a client)."

"Regardless of the AI tool utilized, lawyers should always anonymize client information and refrain from inputting details that could lead to the discovery of the client's identity."

For many craft breweries, the taproom is where the magic happens. It's where customers connect with your brand, your beer, and your people. 

Barbie Bassett, a longtime white news anchor for WLBT, lost her job after two on-air comments her employer deemed racially offensive. First, she referred to a Black reporter's grandmother as "grand m*mmy." WLBT received viewer and employee complaints and gave Bassett a written warning.

Less than six months later, during an on-air segment about Snoop Dogg, Bassett dropped the phrase, "fo shizzle, my n**zle." A Black co-anchor immediately told her, "I can't believe you just said the N word on live TV."

Complaints followed, as did national media, and then Bassett's termination.

She sued, claiming race discrimination. Her argument was, basically, WLBT fired her because she was white, relying heavily on testimony from the station's general manager that "there are some things that Black people can say that White people can't say."

The 5th Circuit was not having it. Title VII does not require employers to make perfect decisions. It requires them to make non-discriminatory ones. WLBT said it fired Bassett because she twice used racially offensive language on air, the second time after a written warning. That is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.

Maybe WLBT was wrong about what Bassett meant. Maybe she meant no harm. Maybe she thought she was merely quoting Snoop. None of that mattered. As the court put it, management does not have to make proper decisions, only non-discriminatory ones.

That is the key employer takeaway. Intent does not always save an employee. Impact matters. Reputation matters. And when the employee has already been warned, the next mistake may be the last.

This case also offers a reminder about "context." Yes, context matters. But context is not a magic wand. "I was just quoting a song" will not always get an employee back on the payroll. Some words carry freight. Some phrases carry history. And some live-TV comments leave employers with little choice but fire.

Employers should still be careful. Investigate. Document. Apply standards consistently. Avoid loose comments that sound like different rules for different races. But when an employee violates workplace standards after a clear warning, courts are not likely to second-guess the employer's business judgment.

Or, to borrow from Snoop: with Title VII, you have to mind your Ps and Qs … and definitely your Ns.

The one mistake I keep seeing employers make, over and over again WIRTW #799: the 'inclusion' edition Can you harass someone for being American? "We'll look into it" is not a harassment response COVID-era remote work doesn't make telework a permanent ADA accommodation requirement