Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Law students sue EEOC to prevent Trump administration’s collection of sensitive information, (Apr 16, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

Absent an injunction, the law students argued they will be at immediate and constant risk of further dissemination of their personal information.

Three law students who applied to a number of law firms for 2025 summer associateships have filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to stop the handover of sensitive personal data belonging to attorneys who work or applied to work for 20 law firms targeted by the Trump administration. The lawsuit, filed by Democracy Forward, aims to halt an investigation of 20 law firms that had undertaken voluntary efforts to examine and mitigate barriers to equal opportunity in the legal industry, arguing the administration has no statutory authority to carry out the investigation.

Investigation into law firms. The EEOC, created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “is central to the federal policy of prohibiting wrongful discrimination in the Nation’s workplaces and in all sectors of economic endeavor.” The EEOC, until this year, recognized that Congress strongly encourages employers to act on a voluntary basis to modify employment practices and systems that constitute barriers to equal employment opportunity.

However, EEOC Acting Head Andrea Lucas in March sent letters to 20 law firms that had undertaken voluntary efforts to examine and mitigate such barriers. Lucas demanded that they submit detailed personal information about their applicants and employees, dating back six to 10 years. The information demanded includes law students’ names, sex, race, contact information, academic performance, compensation, participation in affinity groups, and employment history details.

No authority to investigate. Congress limited the investigative authority of the EEOC, providing that its “power to conduct an investigation can be exercised only after a specific charge has been filed in writing.” To protect the privacy of companies and workers, Congress imposed strict confidentiality requirements on such charges and investigations and on efforts to obtain voluntary compliance and required the EEOC to act through a quorum of three or more commissioners, not a single agency head. The complaint alleges the Trump administration failed to comply with any of these legal requirements, as the investigation is not based on a charge and the EEOC lacks a quorum to act.

The complaint further alleges the administration violated the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires federal agencies to go through a public comment process and obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget before requiring the disclosures of or even soliciting answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on, ten or more persons. The investigative letters post virtually identical questions to the 20 firms and are plainly subject to the PRA; however, the Trump administration followed none of the required steps.

Injunction requested. Absent an injunction, given the lack of constraints on disclosure, the law students argued they will be at immediate and constant risk of further dissemination of their personal information. Further, the complaint argues that the administration has no legitimate interest in obtaining information as part of an illegal investigation and that the public interest is served in not permitting the government to obtain information that is outside of the EEOC’s authority under Title VII and that violates the Paperwork Reduction Act. The law students asked the court to declare the administration’s investigation unlawful, enjoin the administration from taking any action to obtain employee information from the law firms without following statutory processes, and order the administration to destroy any data they have collected to date pursuant to the unlawful.

Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit in the District of Columbia; the case is No. 1:25-cv-01124.

Companies: Democracy Forward

News: LitigationNewsTrends AgencyNews Discrimination RaceDiscrimination SexDiscrimination RemediesDamages Privacy