Recent EEOC subpoena enforcement actions involving employers and institutions in industries ranging from financial services and retail to higher education and government share a common theme. They may involve different allegations, industries, and protected classes, but in each case, the EEOC sought access to relevant data kept by the employer and used its subpoena powers to compel organizations to surrender that data.
Rather than suggesting a shift toward a single enforcement priority, these cases underscore a broader reality for employers: regulators increasingly expect organizations to actively produce the data, documentation, and records necessary to evaluate their own employment decisions and workplace practices.
A Look at Recent EEOC Subpoena Enforcement Actions
Over the past 18 months, the EEOC has filed multiple subpoena enforcement actions against employers and institutions across various industries.
Among them:
Northwestern Mutual
In November 2025, the EEOC sought enforcement of a subpoena connected to allegations involving promotion decisions and concerns raised regarding DEI-related initiatives. The agency sought information about advancement within the aggrieved individual’s work group, the firm’s DEI practices, its HRISs, and the company metrics used for financial rewards. In July 2026, a Wisconsin federal judge ordered Northwestern Mutual to comply with the action.
University of Pennsylvania
Also in November 2025, the EEOC took subpoena action while investigating allegations of antisemitic discrimination and harassment at the University of Pennsylvania. The subpoena was issued to acquire identification of witnesses to, and victims of, the religion-based harassment, including their contact information. The subpoena was withdrawn in July 2026.
Nike
In a February 2026 press release, the EEOC announced it was pursuing a subpoena enforcement action against the sportswear brand over allegations of disparate treatment against white employees, applicants, and training program participants. This involved talent decisions, including selection for layoffs, and various career development programs.
The EEOC subpoenaed layoff criteria, information related to the tracking and use of worker race and ethnicity data, and information from allegedly race-restricted mentoring, leadership, and development programs.
Though the action was dismissed in August 2026, this was at the EEOC’s request, and allegedly because the sportswear giant had been “responsive” to requests after the subpoena was issued.
NAPA Auto Parts
Another subpoena enforcement action filed in February 2026 concerned an investigation involving allegations of systemic race discrimination against Black job applicants. The EEOC sought hiring and recruitment-related data and documents extending back several years.
Psychological Dimensions, LLC
In May 2026, the EEOC filed a subpoena enforcement action against Psychological Dimensions, LLC, a company whose tools were utilized in public sector employment decisions, including the Arapahoe Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) and the Board of County Commissions for Arapahoe County (BCCAC). The EEOC requested information pertaining to the LLC’s pre-employment assessments. This request was declined, leading to the subpoena enforcement action.
City and County of San Francisco
In August 2026, the EEOC filed a subpoena enforcement action against the City and County of San Francisco. This related to a Title VII discrimination charge brought by a former city employee. According to the agency, the subpoena sought, among other things, information related to workplace training and attendance records.
MORE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF DATA | ‘How Documentation and Data Win Employment Cases Long Before They Reach the Courtroom’
The Pattern Behind the Headlines
The cases listed above involved different facts, claims, and legal issues, and the enforcement actions have subsequently met with different outcomes. The purpose of highlighting them is not to compare the allegations or the relative merit of their demands, but to observe a consistent enforcement pattern.
Looking across these enforcement actions, several categories of information appear repeatedly:
- Hiring records
- Applicant flow data
- Promotion decisions
- Compensation information
- Workforce demographic data
- Training materials
- Program eligibility criteria
- Participation records
- Employment assessments
- Internal employment-related documentation
In other words, when the EEOC investigates a charge, it looks to the underlying evidence. It’s not simply evaluating policies, it’s evaluating the data and documentation behind those policies.
Compliance Remains As Data-Driven As Ever
Recent rhetoric and actions from the topmost levels of power have played down the role of data collection in compliance. The EEOC’s removal of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) is just the most recent action taken against disparate impact calculations, for example. But while the sunsetting of race, ethnicity, and sex-based affirmative action, along with the removal of utilization goals, calculations, and self-ID requests from Section 503 suggest compliance is increasingly limited to written policy, required training, and legal review, enforcement activity tells a different story.
The EEOC’s subpoena actions prove that employers must still be able to demonstrate that their employment decisions align with their policies through objective, supportable evidence. That evidence usually includes workforce analytics, hiring records, promotion data, compensation information, and documentation that helps explain business decisions.
When organizations are unable to quickly produce reliable information, responding to regulatory inquiries can become significantly more difficult, time-consuming, and costly.
READ OUR ANALYSIS | “The EEOC Rescinds UGESP: What Happened and What Comes Next”
The Challenge Isn’t Intent. It’s Proof.
Most employers do not intentionally create compliance risk.
The challenge arises when questions surface months or years after employment decisions were made. At that point, organizations may be asked to answer questions such as:
- What criteria were used to make a hiring decision?
- How were employees selected for promotion opportunities?
- Were compensation decisions applied consistently?
- What information supports those decisions?
- Can those records be produced quickly and accurately?
Without having records and reliable workforce data at their fingertips, organizations may have to reconstruct decisions after the fact. That’s as difficult a position to defend as ever.
Why Preparation Matters
One lesson from recent EEOC enforcement activity is that employers shouldn’t wait for a charge, audit, or investigation before examining the quality of their workforce data and documentation practices.
Organizations that take a proactive approach can:
- Identify potential issues earlier
- Maintain audit-ready records
- Improve consistency in employment decisions
- Streamline responses to regulatory inquiries
- Reduce the administrative burden associated with investigations
Most importantly, they place themselves in a stronger position to explain and support employment decisions when questions arise.
BEGIN PREPARING FOR 2027 | ‘Q&A—How to Get Ready for 2027 and Make Sense of a Fractured EEO Landscape’
From Compliance to Defensibility
The takeaway from these recent EEOC actions is not that any particular workplace initiative or employment practice is inherently unlawful.
Rather, the takeaway is that employers should expect as much scrutiny of the information underlying their employment decisions as they’ve ever had.
Whether the issue involves hiring, promotions, compensation, employee assessments, workplace training, or other workforce practices, organizations are still being asked to support their actions with objective evidence.
Because in today’s enforcement environment, good intentions only get you so far: data, documentation, and defensibility determine how effectively an organization can respond when regulators come calling.
Equip your organization with expertise for a new era of employment processes and compliance: contact us today to learn about our risk assessment and analysis solutions.
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.