NEW YORK – A former Democratic member of one of the nation’s leading civil rights enforcement bodies dropped her lawsuit Monday challenging President Donald Trump’s decision to remove her from office, pointing to a recent Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded presidential authority over independent agencies.
Trump’s removal of Jocelyn Samuels and another Democratic commissioner from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission marked an unprecedented move that helped clear the way for a broad shift in federal civil rights enforcement. His administration has focused on targeting diversity and inclusion initiatives, scaling back protections for transgender employees and elevating discrimination complaints brought by white workers and U.S.-born workers.
The EEOC advanced parts of that agenda Monday, issuing a regulatory plan that includes proposals to stop its yearly collection of workplace demographic information and withdraw long-standing guidance cautioning employers that English-only workplace rules may amount to discrimination. The agenda also outlines additional policy changes.
Among Trump’s earliest actions as president was dismantling the Democratic majority on the typically five-member commission, removing what could have been a significant barrier to his civil rights priorities. The firings of Samuels and Charlotte Burrows before their five-year terms expired were without precedent at the EEOC, which Congress created under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The commission is now made up of two Republicans and one Democrat. Trump has not yet put forward nominees for the two remaining vacant seats.
Samuels argued in her lawsuit that Congress designed the EEOC so commissioners, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, would serve staggered terms to preserve “continuity, stability and insulation from political pressure.”
In a statement Monday, however, Samuels said she was withdrawing the case because the Supreme Court’s decision in a separate matter “leaves me without a viable path forward to continue contesting my termination.”
Last week, the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s removal of leaders of independent agencies to stand, while carving out an exception for the Federal Reserve. The ruling cast aside a 91-year-old precedent that had restricted the circumstances under which presidents could dismiss members of independent agency boards.
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling in a LinkedIn post last week, saying that it reinforced that the “EEOC is an executive branch agency.”
In a statement Monday about the new regulatory agenda, an EEOC spokesperson said the agency is “committed to implementing President Trump’s landmark civil rights agenda, dedicated to evenhanded enforcement of federal civil rights laws.”
The EEOC’s sole Democratic commissioner, Kalpana Kotagal, voted against the agenda, saying in a statement that “the proposed changes weaken civil rights protections for workers and undermine the agency’s investigative and enforcement efforts.”
The regulatory agenda includes a proposal to end a 40-year requirement for companies with 100 or more employees, or federal contractors with at least 50 workers, to submit workforce demographic data to the EEOC.
Lucas has publicly warned companies not to use such demographic data to justify what she describes as potentially discriminatory practices to bolster the diversity for their workforce. In its proposed rescission, the EEOC said requirements impose “significant financial and administrative burdens on the nation’s employers.” The rescission will almost certainly be approved by the EEOC commission but it will then be subject to a public commentary period before final passage.
Conservative critics have said demographic data encourages the EEOC to assume that discrimination is behind any gender or racial imbalance in a company’s workforce. Supporters say the EEOC has used the annual surveys to help identify discriminatory patterns, guide its priorities and help track how women and minorities have fared since the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
“The EEOC has collected this data from employers for six decades. It’s difficult to understand why the agency would kneecap its ability to investigate discrimination, particularly at a time when the EEOC is chronically understaffed and underfunded,” Kotagal said.
The EEOC also announced its intent to rescind 1980 guidelines defining national origin-based discrimination, which warns employers that any requirement for workers to exclusively speak English may “create an atmosphere of inferiority, isolation and intimidation based on national origin which could result in a discriminatory working environment.” The EEOC argued that the guidelines are outdated and incorrectly established a “presumption that English-only rules violate Title VII in some circumstances.”
Last week, the EEOC voted to toss out longstanding guidelines on what sort of voluntary affirmative action employers can take to improve job opportunities for women and minorities without violating Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on race, color, national origin, sex and religion. The EEOC reversed its stance that employers could pursue some programs, such as training for women and minorities or steps to expand recruitment pools, without running afoul of Title VII.
Also on the EEOC’s agenda is revising regulations for enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that entitles women to seek workplace accommodations for pregnancy and related medical conditions. Lucas opposed the Biden-era regulations for including abortion as a circumstance allowing accommodations, such as time off for medical appointments.
___
The Associated Press’ women in the workforce coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
