The federal agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws in the workplace made an unexpected disclosure this week: Nike was under investigation for its approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion, due to claims that the company had discriminated against white employees and job applicants.
The investigation suggests that Nike’s diversity goals and other DEI initiatives led the company to hire non-white workers to meet quotas or award them with more opportunities for career advancement, thereby discriminating against white workers. It is notable as the first major legal undertaking by Andrea Lucas, who President Trump installed as the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) last year. But it also indicates that Lucas is serious about targeting corporate employers over alleged discrimination against white workers, which she has clearly signaled is a priority for the agency under the Trump administration.
“It is designed to instill fear into the hearts of large companies,” says Chai Feldblum, a former EEOC commissioner and a member of EEO Leaders, a group of former senior officials who worked at the EEOC and Department of Labor under multiple administrations. “If they’re afraid, then small companies will be afraid. And the point is to chill any form of equity and diversity efforts, even legal ones.”
An unusual investigation
The investigation into Nike is unusual for a few reasons: It is, of course, the first inquiry into what the agency has called “DEI-related discrimination.” But it is also rare that the EEOC’s investigations into employers become public before they have concluded, since the process is supposed to be confidential.
An EEOC investigation typically either ends in a dismissal or, if the agency finds reasonable cause and concludes there was discrimination, results in a conciliation process that allows an employer to resolve the issue in private, with both parties coming to an agreement. If conciliation fails, the agency would then decide whether or not to bring a lawsuit, which is considered a last resort and happens infrequently.
The EEOC does often use subpoenas to force employers to comply with their requests for information. According to Feldblum, subpoenas can be a useful tool for the agency to extract information from a company that might be stonewalling or only offering partial responses to its inquiries. In the case of Nike, however, the EEOC went to court to enforce the subpoena, thrusting the investigation into the public record.
“What is unusual about this is the publicity,” Feldblum says. “Which is what chair Lucas wants. She’s doing that by suing on a subpoena. I think it’s a question whether EEOC is following its normal process for enforcing subpoenas.”
Nike seemed to suggest as much in a statement to Fast Company.
“This feels like a surprising and unusual escalation,” a company spokesperson said. “We have had extensive, good-faith participation in an EEOC inquiry into our personnel practices, programs, and decisions and have had ongoing efforts to provide information and engage constructively with the agency. We have shared thousands of pages of information and detailed written responses to the EEOC’s inquiry and are in the process of providing additional information.”
The statement continued: “We are committed to fair and lawful employment practices and follow all applicable laws, including those that prohibit discrimination . . . We will continue our attempt to cooperate with the EEOC and will respond to the petition.”
A possible new precedent
Feldblum argues the EEOC’s approach to this investigation could set a precedent of taking companies to court over what the agency perceives to be insufficient cooperation with its requests for information.
The press release put out by the EEOC makes evident that the agency had requested extensive details about Nike’s employment decisions, including its criteria for layoffs, the use of demographic data and how it was tied to executive compensation, and specifics about 16 programs that offered mentoring, leadership, or career development opportunities to underrepresented employees.
Unlike many of the cases the EEOC investigates, this one was not initiated by a complaint from a worker alleging discrimination; Lucas herself brought the charge against Nike in 2024. But it’s not clear exactly what prompted the investigation.
The EEOC claims to be looking into “systemic allegations of DEI-related intentional race discrimination” at Nike that have targeted white workers. By Lucas’s own admission, per a statement in the EEOC release, this investigation seems to have been prompted by Nike’s public disclosures about its DEI programs. (When Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms last year requesting details on their DEI practices—a move that drew widespread criticism—she had relied on public statements.)
“You sign a commissioner charge under penalty of perjury,” Feldblum says. “You need to have at least some evidence of discrimination to sign that charge. Now if you believe that simply having a [diversity] goal is reasonable evidence of discrimination, then you’ll go ahead and sign that.”
The future of DEI
Like many companies at the time, Nike set ambitious DEI goals after the murder of George Floyd sparked a racial reckoning across corporate America. (The company has also grappled with broader culture issues over the years, including allegations of sexual harassment and gender discrimination.) In 2021, Nike tied executive compensation to DEI commitments that were intended to increase the share of women in leadership and boost representation of racial and ethnic minorities to 35% across its workforce.
In the time since, however, Nike has cycled through five chief diversity officers; the company also declined to put out a corporate sustainability report last year, which typically documents its progress on DEI—though Nike claimed it had not wavered from its diversity commitments.
Depending on how the EEOC investigation unfolds, Nike could face significant repercussions. The court will likely uphold the subpoena, according to Feldblum, which means Nike will likely have to produce reams of additional information. If the EEOC decides to make an example of Nike, the investigation could ultimately result in a lawsuit—which would have far-reaching consequences for other employers and potentially set a precedent for subsequent investigations.
“I think we all—employers, employees, the general public—have got to assume there will be a continued onslaught of attacks on DEI,” Feldblum says, urging companies to “review, not retreat” from their diversity programs and position on DEI. “The EEOC is trying to stop employers from doing anything to increase diversity and equity, and they are stretching their own procedures, as well as the law . . . And that is a very sad day for an agency entrusted with enforcing employment civil rights laws.”