Back in April, an EEOC press release announced that the agency had secured $660 million for 17,680 victims of employment discrimination in fiscal year 2025, an amount it observed to be the “third-highest total monetary recovery in recent history.” But what does this amount mean, given the anti-DEI agenda of the current administration and its pivot away from race and gender-based compliance reporting? Affirmity Vice President of Sales Kim Hendon looks at what’s behind recent recoveries, and what to expect going forward.
Background: What Record Did the EEOC Break in 2025?
Being only the “third-highest total monetary recovery in recent history,” the headline $660 million figure isn’t actually the record-breaking result that the EEOC is keen to highlight—in fact, total monetary recovery is actually slightly down from fiscal year 2024, which saw $700 million in total recoveries.
The record-breaking result is instead the $528 million the EEOC recovered through its pre-litigation enforcement process. This encompasses mediation, conciliation, and pre-cause determination settlements—i.e. actions taken with the cooperation of all parties involved without the EEOC taking the employer to court. The agency has historically claimed that “filing lawsuits is a last resort.” In deciding whether to file a lawsuit, the EEOC considers:
- The seriousness of the violation
- The type of legal issues in the case
- The wider impact the lawsuit could have on the agency’s efforts to combat workplace discrimination
- The resources available to litigate the case effectively
While it isn’t unusual for the agency to prefer that violations be addressed through the pre-litigation enforcement process, the $528 million it recovered in 2025 is nonetheless the highest amount ever recovered through the process, and 12% higher than the total for fiscal year 2024.
AGENCIES IN THE NEWS | ‘OFCCP Directorship Changes Again Ahead of Defunding Push’
Does the Extra Emphasis on Pre-Litigation Enforcement Reveal Anything About the EEOC’s Objectives?
The goal of the pre-litigation enforcement process is to make resolutions efficient, effective, and inexpensive from an agency perspective. It’s certainly advantageous for the current administration to be able to point to these increases in the wider context of its “Government Efficiency” initiatives. Accordingly, the press release is keen to additionally emphasize other wins such, as a 9% increase in the number of inquiries responded to (270,000 total), a 4% increase in discrimination charge resolutions (90,743 total), and a 4% reduction in the private sector charge inventory.
Nonetheless, EEOC chair Andrea Lucas’ only statement in the release is a somewhat unrevealing one, hinting more at the EEOC’s current anti-DEI philosophy than the efficiency achieved. She writes: “These record-breaking recoveries are the result of an Administration committed to upholding our nation’s civil rights laws through colorblind, merit-based, and evenhanded enforcement. This EEOC is proud to deliver on that commitment and will continue to fight discrimination wherever it occurs.”
It could perhaps be said that, in addition to the show of efficiency, what we’re also seeing is the agency promptly clearing a backlog of cases held over from the last administration. Doing so allows it to put greater focus on its own enforcement goals and deal instead with a fresh wave of cases it likely hoped to prompt by speaking out against “unlawful discrimination related to DEI in the workplace” (and similar issues) in statements like February’s reminder letter aimed at Fortune 500 companies.
MORE ON THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT | ‘The False Claims Act: Details Emerge From DOJ at Federal Bar Association Conference’
The Wider Picture: EEOC Enforcement Is Just One Direction to Watch For
Even if the EEOC’s focus on the expedient pre-litigation enforcement process is to continue into the second half of this administration, the fact remains that, right now, the major theme of compliance risk is that it may come from an expanded range of directions.
Federal contractors, for example, are used to enforcement coming in the form of OFCCP-style audits. However, they can now expect to face scrutiny from individual contracting agencies and other bodies: the DOJ, EEOC, individual states, and private plaintiffs are all looking to exploit new angles of attack. Such approaches may be based on bedrock equal employment opportunity laws like Title VII, state laws, or the False Claims Act clause implemented in contracts by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council, as per EO 14398.
According to a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) disclosure related to the proposed implementation of EO 14398, federal agencies allegedly expect to demand relevant material proving DEI-related misconduct from 6,825 contractors annually. This would include “all information and reports, including providing access to books, records, and accounts, as required by the contracting officer, for purposes of ascertaining compliance with the clause” (i.e. FAR 52.222-90). Considering that OFCCP auditing activity previously dealt with only around 1,000 to 2,000 contractors annually, organizations should brace themselves for a significant increase in overall regulatory burden and risk.
The nature of this scrutiny is also likely to present issues for organizations. It seems likely that reviewers in certain agencies will lack the level of EEO, adverse impact, or discrimination expertise that organizations have expected OFCCP compliance officers to have had in the past. This will also be a prominent issue when dealing with complaints made by private plaintiffs—setting the record straight is likely to prove a frustrating experience even with the right data and resources at your disposal.
RELATED READING | ‘The Strategic Case for Collecting and Analyzing Workforce Demographic Data’
Conclusion: Companies That Ended Self-Assessments Are At Significant Risk
While the end of race and gender-based affirmative action and the current administration’s focus on DEI discrimination are dramatic shifts in their own right, they have changed relatively little about what organizations need to do in order to stay out of trouble. Enforcement isn’t slowing down—organizations should expect a rise in complaint-driven and systemic investigations, with the EEOC and other agencies leaning on litigation and conciliation rather than voluntary compliance tools.
Your organization must continue conducting risk assessments, workforce data reviews, and adverse impact analyses so it can demonstrate good-faith efforts. To opt out of these activities is to opt out of defending the legitimacy of your activities against a rising tide of enforcement. Ultimately, if you haven’t collected statistical proof of your compliance that defends against auditing and protects your contracts, it won’t really matter whether the agencies push you towards their pre-litigation process or make an example of you in the courts.
Continue protecting your organization with race and gender non-discrimination analysis, and use our training solutions to ensure your people understand the law even as it evolves. Contact our team of experts today.
About the Author
Kim Hendon oversees account management and sales for Affirmity. She is responsible for building successful, long-term partnerships with clients and generating new business. Having served with the company for more than 25 years, Ms. Hendon has in-depth knowledge and broad experience in all areas of workforce analytics and HR compliance.
Ms. Hendon assists clients with the planning and development of workforce compliance and non-discrimination programs, as well as employee engagement initiatives. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Speech Communication and a Master’s in Business Administration. Connect with her on LinkedIn.