EEOC regulations on employment discrimination
🔍 I. What Is the EEOC?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency charged with enforcing civil rights laws against workplace discrimination.
The EEOC enforces laws prohibiting discrimination based on:
Race
Color
Religion
Sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity)
National origin
Age (40 or older)
Disability
Genetic information
Core Federal Laws Enforced by EEOC:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
Equal Pay Act of 1963
📚 II. Key EEOC Regulations (Selected)
1. 29 C.F.R. Part 1604–1607
Addresses disparate impact, adverse treatment, and affirmative defenses under Title VII.
Includes the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.
2. 29 C.F.R. § 1630 (ADA Regulations)
Defines “disability,” “reasonable accommodation,” and “essential job functions.”
3. 29 C.F.R. § 1625 (ADEA)
Covers age-based employment practices.
⚖️ III. Detailed Explanation of Key EEOC-Related Court Cases
Below are six landmark cases that have interpreted and shaped the enforcement of EEOC regulations.
Case 1: Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
Focus: Disparate Impact under Title VII
Facts:
Duke Power required high school diplomas and intelligence tests for employment, which disproportionately excluded Black applicants.
Issue:
Do facially neutral requirements that disproportionately affect a protected group violate Title VII?
Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that employment practices that are neutral on their face but discriminatory in effect can violate Title VII unless job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Significance:
Introduced the disparate impact theory.
EEOC regulations adopted this standard in 29 C.F.R. § 1607.3.
Case 2: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)
Focus: Burden-shifting Framework for Disparate Treatment
Facts:
Green, a Black mechanic and civil rights activist, was denied re-employment. He claimed racial discrimination.
Issue:
How should courts evaluate claims of intentional (disparate treatment) discrimination?
Holding:
The Court established a three-part burden-shifting test:
Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case.
Employer must offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.
Plaintiff must show that reason is pretextual.
Significance:
Forms the basis of most Title VII litigation today.
EEOC enforces this framework in its investigations.
Case 3: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015)
Focus: Religious Discrimination and Accommodation
Facts:
A Muslim woman wore a headscarf to a job interview. Abercrombie denied her employment, citing its dress code.
Issue:
Must an employer have actual knowledge of the need for accommodation to be liable under Title VII?
Holding:
No. The Court held that an employer may be liable even without explicit notice if the decision was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodation.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of religious accommodation.
EEOC updated guidance to reflect that motivation, not knowledge, triggers liability.
Case 4: Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)
Focus: Title VII and LGBTQ+ Discrimination
Facts:
Three employees were fired for being gay or transgender.
Issue:
Does discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity fall under “sex” discrimination in Title VII?
Holding:
Yes. The Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently discrimination “because of sex.”
Significance:
Landmark decision expanding protections.
EEOC now enforces Title VII to cover LGBTQ+ rights explicitly.
Case 5: Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. 206 (2015)
Focus: Pregnancy Discrimination
Facts:
A pregnant UPS worker was denied light duty, even though others with similar restrictions were accommodated.
Issue:
Does the Pregnancy Discrimination Act require equal accommodation?
Holding:
Yes. If an employer accommodates other workers with similar limitations, they must do the same for pregnant employees unless there's a strong justification.
Significance:
Reinforced EEOC’s Pregnancy Discrimination Guidance.
Employers must apply policies consistently.
Case 6: EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 477 F.3d 561 (8th Cir. 2007)
Focus: Disability Discrimination under the ADA
Facts:
An employee with a cognitive disability was terminated after being denied job coaching as an accommodation.
Issue:
Was the employer’s failure to provide reasonable accommodation a violation of the ADA?
Holding:
Yes. The court found that denying job coaching, which would not impose an undue burden, violated the ADA.
Significance:
Clarified what counts as a reasonable accommodation.
EEOC relies on this reasoning in ADA enforcement.
🧾 IV. Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Key Legal Rule | Impact on EEOC Practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Griggs v. Duke Power | Disparate Impact | Neutral practices with discriminatory effect may violate Title VII | Basis for Uniform Guidelines (29 C.F.R. § 1607) |
| McDonnell Douglas | Disparate Treatment | Burden-shifting framework | Foundation for most EEOC case evaluations |
| Abercrombie & Fitch | Religious Accommodation | Motivation triggers liability | Broadened religious rights enforcement |
| Bostock v. Clayton County | LGBTQ+ Rights | Sexual orientation/gender identity = sex discrimination | Major expansion of EEOC's coverage |
| Young v. UPS | Pregnancy Discrimination | Equal treatment for pregnancy-related conditions | Stronger EEOC guidance on pregnancy |
| EEOC v. Wal-Mart | Disability Accommodation | Denial of job coaching = ADA violation | Defines "reasonable accommodation" standards |
📌 V. EEOC Enforcement Process (Simplified)
Charge Filed – Employee or third party files discrimination charge.
Notice to Employer – Employer is informed and must respond.
Investigation – EEOC interviews witnesses, reviews documents.
Determination – EEOC issues a finding (reasonable cause or not).
Conciliation – EEOC may attempt settlement.
Litigation – If unresolved, EEOC may sue or issue a “Right to Sue” letter.
🔮 VI. Emerging Trends
AI and Discrimination – EEOC is increasing scrutiny on algorithmic hiring practices.
COVID-19 & Disabilities – Long COVID considered under ADA in some contexts.
Remote Work & Reasonable Accommodation – Growing legal challenges on telework as a right under ADA.
Pay Transparency Laws – EEOC supports equity through enforcement and rulemaking.
✅ Conclusion
The EEOC plays a central role in enforcing anti-discrimination laws across workplaces in the U.S. The case law above demonstrates that courts generally uphold a broad interpretation of civil rights statutes and give substantial weight to EEOC regulations and enforcement guidance. These cases shape how both employers and employees understand their rights and responsibilities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments