EEOC chief urges white men to report workplace discrimination as agency tightens DEI focus

WASHINGTON — The head of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission posted a social-media appeal urging white men to report discrimination at work, saying they may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Acting Chair Andrea Lucas wrote on X that white men who have experienced discrimination based on race or sex “you may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws,” and urged eligible workers to contact the agency “as soon as possible” while directing them to the EEOC’s fact sheet on DEI-related discrimination for more information.

Her post, viewed widely on the platform, came two hours after Vice President JD Vance linked to an article critiquing DEI and its consequences. Lucas responded to Vance’s post, writing: “Absolutely right @JDVance. And precisely because this widespread, systemic, unlawful discrimination primarily harmed white men, elites didn’t just turn a blind eye; they celebrated it. Absolutely unacceptable; unlawful; immoral.” She added that the EEOC “won’t rest until this discrimination is eliminated.” Neither the agency nor Vance provided an immediate comment.

Since being named acting chair of the EEOC in January, Lucas has been shifting the agency’s focus toward “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination,” aligning with the anti-DEI executive orders pursued by President Donald Trump. Trump named Lucas as the agency’s chair in November. Earlier this year, the EEOC, along with the Department of Justice, issued two “technical assistance” documents attempting to clarify what might constitute “DEI-related Discrimination at Work” and providing guidance on how workers can file complaints over such concerns. The documents analyzed practices such as training programs, employee resource groups and fellowship efforts, warning that DEI initiatives—depending on their construction—could run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and gender.

Those documents drew criticism from former agency commissioners who argued they could portray DEI initiatives as legally fraught. David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at NYU School of Law, said Lucas’s latest social-media posts show a “fundamental misunderstanding of what DEI is.” “It’s really much more about creating a culture in which you get the most out of everyone you’re bringing on board, where everyone experiences fairness and equal opportunity, including white men and members of other groups,” Glasgow said. The Meltzer Center tracks lawsuits that may affect workplace DEI practices and has counted dozens in recent years.

The agency’s leadership and its critics diverge on whether DEI programs inherently discriminate or simply aim to broaden opportunity. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with the law firm Outten & Golden, called Lucas’s approach “unusual” and “problematic” for the head of the agency to single out a demographic group for civil rights enforcement. “It suggests some sort of priority treatment,” Yang said. “That’s not something that sounds to me like equal opportunity for all.” She noted that the EEOC has, in other contexts, pursued actions that prioritize protections for transgender workers, a dynamic some researchers say has not always received parity in enforcement.

The EEOC has limited resources and must prioritize which cases to pursue. Yang acknowledged that tradeoffs exist, but she warned against messaging that treats some workers as less deserving of protection than others. “Treating charges differently based on workers’ identities goes against the mission of the agency,” Yang said. “It worries me that a message is being sent that the EEOC only cares about some workers and not others.”

The political and legal debate comes as broader questions about DEI persist in corporate America and in government circles. Lucas has argued that diversity initiatives can be misused and that their legal implications should be clarified in enforcement actions. Proponents of DEI say such programs can promote fair opportunity and counter systemic biases, while critics contend they can inadvertently create new forms of discrimination or misallocate resources.

Beyond disputes over policy, the exchange highlights how technology and digital platforms shape the discourse around civil rights enforcement. Vance’s post and Lucas’s reply circulated rapidly on X, illustrating how social media can influence public perception of government priorities and trigger rapid, unfiltered reactions from the public, lawmakers and researchers. The EEOC’s own use of digital channels to reach workers, and the timing of its technical-assistance guidance, underscore how information technology intersects with labor law and workplace governance in the modern era.

As the conversation continues, observers will watch how the EEOC balances a mandate to enforce federal civil rights laws with evolving debates about the scope and purpose of DEI in the modern workplace. The agency has not indicated that it plans to shift its enforcement model away from DEI-related concerns, but Lucas’s approach signals a continued emphasis on scrutinizing DEI programs for potential legal exposure under Title VII. Analysts say this could influence how employers design trainings, ERGs and fellowship programs to minimize legal risk while still pursuing fairness and opportunity for a diverse workforce.

With the post drawing attention across media and among policy circles, the EEOC’s next steps will be closely scrutinized by legal advocates, business leaders and researchers who track how technology, platforms and policy intersect to shape workplace rights in the 21st century.