The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently filed a lawsuit against Washington University in St. Louis, alleging that the university retaliated against an employee after she complained about race discrimination arising from a mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) training.
The lawsuit, EEOC v. The Washington University, Case No. 4:26-cv-01289 (E.D. Mo.), is the latest indication that the EEOC is closely scrutinizing employment practices associated with DEI programs. It also highlights a separate – and potentially significant – risk for employers: an employee who objects to a workplace practice as discriminatory may engage in activity protected by Title VII, even where the employer believes the challenged practice was intended to advance diversity or inclusion.
The EEOC’s Allegations
According to the EEOC, the employee worked as a senior program manager at Washington University’s Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center. In January 2025, she participated in a mandatory DEI training, during which employees were separated by race into different groups. The employee, who was the only Black member of her team, had reportedly expressed concern in advance about participating in the exercise and was ultimately placed alone in a virtual breakout room.
The employee complained internally about the training in January 2025 and later filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in July 2025. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the University subsequently transferred some of her responsibilities to other employees and later eliminated her position, resulting in her termination.
The EEOC alleges that the termination constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and Washington University will have an opportunity to respond to the claims.
The filing has already drawn public comment from EEOC leadership. Following the announcement, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas wrote that “DEI programs are not above the law – and sometimes can lead to harming the very employees that DEI advocates claim to be helping,” adding that “[c]ombating discrimination – including DEI-related race discrimination – and protecting employees who speak up are priorities for the EEOC.” Coming directly from the agency’s leadership, the statement signals that DEI-related discrimination and retaliation claims are likely to remain an enforcement priority going forward.
DEI Programs Remain Subject to Title VII
The lawsuit underscores a fundamental compliance principle for employers: Title VII applies to employment practices regardless of how an employer labels the program or the objectives the employer intends the program to accomplish.
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating with respect to employment because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In recent guidance concerning DEI-related discrimination, the EEOC has specifically identified separating, limiting, or classifying employees based on protected characteristics as practices that may implicate Title VII.
This does not mean that employers must abandon workplace initiatives addressing diversity, discrimination, harassment, inclusion, or equal employment opportunity. It does mean, however, that employers should evaluate how those programs operate in practice. Training exercises, participation requirements, employment opportunities, mentoring programs, affinity initiatives, and similar practices should be reviewed to determine whether employees are being treated differently because of race, sex, or another protected characteristic.
Programs that expressly classify or separate employees according to protected characteristics warrant particular scrutiny.
The Retaliation Risk May Be Just as Important
For employers, the Washington University lawsuit carries an additional lesson beyond the design of DEI programs themselves.
Title VII protects employees from retaliation for engaging in protected activity, including opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe are discriminatory. As a result, an employer should not assume that an employee’s complaint is unprotected merely because management disagrees that the underlying practice violates Title VII.
Once an employee raises a discrimination concern, employers should carefully evaluate subsequent employment decisions affecting that employee. Legitimate performance management and other employment actions may continue, but employers should ensure that those decisions are supported by legitimate, consistently applied reasons and are appropriately documented.
Particular care may be warranted when significant employment actions – such as reassignment of duties, discipline, changes in responsibilities, or termination – occur after an employee has raised a discrimination complaint or filed an EEOC charge.
Practical Considerations for Employers
In light of the EEOC’s continuing focus on DEI-related employment practices, employers should consider:
- Reviewing existing DEI and workplace training programs for practices that expressly separate, classify, or treat employees differently based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic;
- Evaluating participation criteria and employment opportunities to ensure that access is not unlawfully restricted based on protected characteristics;
- Training managers and human resources personnel to recognize that objections to allegedly discriminatory DEI practices may constitute protected activity under Title VII;
- Escalating post-complaint employment decisions for review, particularly where discipline, reassignment, restructuring, or termination is contemplated after an employee raises a discrimination concern; and
- Documenting legitimate business reasons for employment decisions and evaluating whether those reasons are consistent with the employer's treatment of similarly situated employees.
The Washington University case remains at the allegation stage, and no court has determined that the University violated Title VII. Nevertheless, both the EEOC’s decision to bring the case and Chair Lucas’s public comments provide useful insight into the agency’s current enforcement priorities. For employers, the broader lesson is straightforward: workplace programs designed to address diversity and inclusion remain subject to the same federal anti-discrimination requirements as other employment practices, and employees who raise concerns about those programs retain independent protections against retaliation. Employers should therefore consider both sides of the compliance equation – how workplace initiatives are designed and administered, and how the organization responds when an employee raises a concern about them.
If you have questions about Title VII compliance, DEI-related employment practices, retaliation risks, or how these developments may affect your organization, please contact Michael A. Airdo at mairdo@airdowerwas.com, Elizabeth M. Yanan at eyanan@airdowerwas.com, or Yujing Sheeler at ysheeler@airdowerwas.com.
Airdo Werwas, LLC, advises employers regarding workplace policies, employee complaints, internal investigations, discrimination and retaliation issues, and compliance with federal and state employment laws. Employers with questions regarding DEI-related employment practices or responding to employee complaints should consult with experienced employment counsel.
