EEOC Settles Lawsuit, Admits the Demands it Placed on Law Firms Were Nonbinding
Washington, D.C. — Law students represented by Democracy Forward have secured a significant victory after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) retreated from its controversial effort to collect sensitive demographic information from specific law firms about their attorneys and job applicants. In a court filing in Doe 1 v. EEOC, the agency has now acknowledged that despite its attempt to threaten law firms to believe otherwise, its data requests were voluntary, that most firms did not comply, that it received no personally identifying information, and that the matter is now closed, bringing an end to an episode that had threatened the privacy and careers of current and future lawyers.
The lawsuit was filed on April 15, 2025, after then-Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms requesting extensive data on race, sex, academic records, compensation, and affiliations with diversity organizations, requests widely viewed as politically motivated attempts to undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the legal profession. On May 16, 2025, the lawsuit was expanded to a class action complaint. The law student plaintiffs argued that the EEOC lacked authority for such demands and that the effort threatened to chill participation in the legal profession.
Democracy Forward pursued the case to protect law students, attorneys, applicants, and the legal profession’s independence from political intimidation, specifically regarding its efforts towards greater racial and other diversity in the profession. By making the EEOC put its retreat on the record, the litigation secured concrete protections for those who would have been harmed by the agency’s overreach.
“This case is proof that litigation works,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “When the Trump-Vance administration tries to bully people into surrendering their rights or undermining their values, going to court is not just necessary, it is effective. Because our brave clients fought back, the EEOC admitted that its demands were voluntary and closed the matter. We encourage all institutions who receive politically motivated investigatory demands and threatening letters from the government to consider if their rights are being violated and what legal options they may have. We are proud of our law student clients for bringing this action and encourage not just people – but also powerful institutions – to use their platforms to oppose political intimidation and to protect the rule of law and efforts towards greater inclusion. This moment requires action, not complacency.”
The case is Doe 1 v. EEOC before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the legal team at Democracy Forward includes Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Sarah Goetz, Audrey Wiggins, Orlando Economos, and Sunu Chandy.
Read the stipulation of dismissal here.
###
