Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Court denies AFGE’s bid for immediate order against EEOC over class complaint freeze, allows limited discovery, (Sep 3, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

The EEOC avoided an immediate injunction after assuring the judge that any pause in federal-sector class complaints was an isolated mistake, not agency policy—the court will allow discovery to test that claim.

A federal district court in the District of Columbia has denied, for now, a request by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and two federal prison employees to immediately halt application of an alleged EEOC policy suspending federal-sector class discrimination cases, while allowing the lawsuit to move forward with expedited proceedings and limited discovery into whether such a policy existed.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish the imminent irreparable harm necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction, largely because the EEOC has resumed processing the cases at issue and has represented to the court that any suspension of class-complaint proceedings “should not” have occurred and “will not recur.”

The lawsuit, brought by the union and two Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employees, targets what the plaintiffs contend was an unlawful and indefinite halt in the EEOC’s handling of federal-sector class complaints. The dispute centers on the processing of class actions filed by federal workers alleging workplace discrimination.

Sexual harassment complaint. Underlying the litigation over the policy is an EEOC class complaint, Pippen v. Bondi, which was certified in March 2025 on behalf of female employees at the Federal Correctional Complex in Pollock, Louisiana. The class alleges that the BOP failed to address widespread sexual harassment of female correctional staff by inmates, including sexually explicit comments, exhibitionist behavior, masturbation, groping, and rape threats. The class seeks remedial action requiring the agency to address the alleged discriminatory conditions.

The current lawsuit against the EEOC was prompted by a December 2025 “Notification of Case Processing Abeyance” issued by an EEOC administrative judge in the Pippen matter. It directed that “all case processing” in the case be paused “until further notice,” cancelled deadlines and appearances, and stated that the directive applied to “all class cases in the federal sector, including those alleging disparate impact.” The plaintiffs argued that the notice reflected a broader agencywide suspension of federal-sector class complaint adjudication.

APA relief sought. AFGE and the individual plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and relief under the Administrative Procedure Act requiring the EEOC to resume processing federal-sector class complaints. They argued that continued delays would prolong alleged discrimination, reduce the effectiveness of eventual remedies, undermine notice to class members, and discourage federal employees from pursuing class claims through the EEOC process.

An “isolated” mistake. However, the EEOC disputed the existence of any agency policy freezing class cases. According to the court’s opinion, the agency characterized the Pippen abeyance order as an “isolated incident of an administrative judge’s order issued in error” that has since been “corrected,” rather than a commission-wide directive. The agency told the court that affected cases had been reassigned to other administrative judges, and that new scheduling orders had been issued to move the matters forward.

Those representations proved decisive at the preliminary injunction stage.

Irreparable harm? Judge Kollar-Kotelly emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” and that plaintiffs must show an imminent threat of future, irreparable harm that is “both certain and great” and that is “actual and not theoretical.” Because the EEOC had resumed processing the pending class complaints and assured the court that such a suspension would not happen again, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs had not made the required showing of imminent irreparable injury.

“The Court's analysis of the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction begins and ends with their allegations of irreparable harm,” the judge wrote. While acknowledging that the plaintiffs had presented evidence of significant harms resulting from the alleged months-long delay, the court found that those harms were largely retrospective and that the current record did not establish a sufficient likelihood of future injury.

Denied, without prejudice. As a result, the court denied the injunction request without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the plaintiffs could renew their request if circumstances change. The judge expressly declined to rule on the remaining preliminary injunction factors, including whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act claims.

Notably, the court’s decision relied heavily on the agency’s representations that processing of federal-sector class complaints should not have been suspended and that any such suspension would not recur. Judge Kollar-Kotelly cautioned that if the government later adopts a position inconsistent with those statements, the court would entertain arguments that the agency had gained an unfair advantage by changing positions after successfully defeating the injunction request.

Limited discovery. The judge also signaled some skepticism toward the EEOC’s characterization of the dispute as an isolated incident. While stopping short of making factual findings, the court observed that the plaintiffs had produced substantial evidence suggesting that delays in Pippen and other class complaints may have resulted from a broader coordinated policy rather than a single administrative error. The court noted that the plaintiffs presented communications from administrative judges and evidence from other federal-sector class cases that they contend demonstrate a broader pause in case processing.

Thus, the court authorized limited discovery, an unusual step in Administrative Procedure Act litigation, to determine “the contours of the precise policy,” if any, that caused the delays in the processing of Pippen “and other federal-sector class complaints.” Because the details of any such policy would be known primarily to the EEOC, the court concluded that targeted discovery is warranted.

Proposed rule eliminating EEOC jurisdiction. The court’s decision comes as the EEOC is considering broader changes to the handling of federal-sector class complaints. The opinion notes that the plaintiffs pointed to an EEOC proposed rule published on August 28 that would eliminate the agency’s jurisdiction over future class complaints, a development the plaintiffs cited in arguing that their concerns about renewed suspensions remain well-founded.

The case is No. 26-2649 (CKK).

News: LitigationNewsTrends PublicEmployees AgencyNews Discrimination ClassActions Procedure