Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, HOUSE NEWS—Rep. Bobby Scott criticizes EEOC for reported plans to close disparate impact cases, (Sep 24, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The administration “is abandoning one of the most effective tools for rooting out and correcting entrenched bias and discrimination,” forcing workers to defend their rights alone, Scott said.

U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) released a statement criticizing a decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to end investigations where an employee only alleges disparate impact workplace discrimination. As a result of this decision, the EEOC will only review charges of discrimination where the intent to discriminate is clearly stated—“a gross departure from the disparate impact provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,” Scott argued.

Disparate impact analysis. Disparate impact is when a policy or practice appears to be neutral but has a disproportionate impact on a protected group, Scott explained. Title VII explicitly addresses instances where a seemingly neutral policy or action causes disproportionate and unjustified negative harm to a group, regardless of intent. Because discriminatory intent is rarely explicitly stated, Scott explained, identifying potential discrimination based on its impact—rather than just motive—is critical to enforcing civil rights protections. The EEOC has used disparate impact to examine if and how employers’ policies or practices have an impact on protected groups. Scott stated, “It is therefore shocking that the premier agency—created by statute to combat workplace discrimination—would abdicate its responsibility and purpose by dispensing the disparate analysis tool.”

Executive order. On April 23, 2205, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” The EO called disparate-impact liability a key tool of “a pernicious movement... seeking to transform America’s promise of equal opportunity into a divisive pursuit of results preordained by irrelevant immutable characteristics, regardless of individual strengths, effort, or achievement.” The EO states that it is the policy of the U.S. “to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.” Subsequently, it was reported that the Trump administration planned to close EEOC charges where employees solely raise disparate impact claims.

Closure of disparate impact cases. As a result, Scott argued, the EEOC will only review charges of discrimination where the intent to discriminate is clearly stated—"a gross departure from the disparate impact provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and how discrimination operates in the workplace and society at large.” Scott argued that closing disparate impact discrimination cases “is a grave disservice to workers [that] continues a disturbing pattern of misinterpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” By closing disparate impact discrimination charges, Scott said, the administration “is abandoning one of the most effective tools for rooting out and correcting entrenched bias and discrimination,” forcing workers to defend their rights alone and undermining decades of progress.

News: AgencyNews Discrimination CoverageLiability