For WorldatWork Members
- With EEO-1 Reporting Up in the Air, Here Are Some Recommended Actions, Workspan Daily Plus+ article
- Beyond EEO-1: Why Demographic Data Will Still Matter, Workspan Daily Plus+ article
- An Operational Decision Tree to Evaluate ADA Accommodation Requests, Workspan Daily Plus+ article
- Whose Worker Is It Anyway? Traversing the Joint Employer Triangle, Workspan Daily Plus+ article
- Navigating Complexities of Pay Equity Gap Analysis Methods, Workspan Magazine article
- The Potential Dangers of Aggregated Statistics, Journal of Total Rewards article
- Engage Community, peer engagement and connection platform
For Everyone
- Supreme Court Rules President Can Remove Agency Heads Without Cause, Workspan Daily article
- EEOC Wants to Ax Employee Reporting. What Would This Mean for You? Workspan Daily article
- EEOC Letter Reminds Corporate Leaders About Title VII Do’s, DEI Don’ts, Workspan Daily article
- What You Need to Know (and Do) About the EEOC’s Harassment Guidance, Workspan Daily article
- Pay Equity: Focus Is on ‘What’ and ‘How,’ But Don’t Forget the ‘Why,’ Workspan Daily article
- Pay Equity Course Series, education
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Monday, June 29, voted to rescind two 1979-enacted policy documents:
- The “Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as Amended” guidelines (found in 29 CFR Part 1608); and,
- The corresponding “Compliance Manual Section 607 on Affirmative Action.”
The rescission plans are scheduled to be published in the July 1 edition of the Federal Register.
The EEOC, which enforces federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination in numerous areas (e.g., hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, benefits), determined that the previously provided affirmative action guidelines:
- Ran counter to the original text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the EEOC stated inherently provides the “same protections for every ‘individual’”; and,
- Contradicted Supreme Court rulings that have “emerged over the last four decades.” (The agency specifically cited the June 5, 2025, unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which found plaintiffs alleging “reverse discrimination” under Title VII do not have to meet a higher evidentiary standard than any other plaintiff.)
Background on the Guidelines
The guidelines were initially created to encourage and protect employers who take voluntary steps to eliminate discrimination and correct historical workforce imbalances for minorities and women, without exposing them to reverse-discrimination lawsuits. To achieve this, the interpretive guidelines were designed to establish a clear legal safe harbor. Key objectives of the regulation are listed in the table below:
|
Objective |
Intent / Purpose |
|
Encourage voluntary action |
Promote proactive correction of the effects of past or present discriminatory practices or artificially limited labor pools without forcing organizations to wait for formal litigation. |
|
Provide legal protection |
Shield employers and labor organizations from liability under Title VII when they implement race, sex or national origin-conscious affirmative action plans. |
|
Standardize compliance |
Outline exactly when voluntary plans are considered appropriate (e.g., following a “reasonable self-analysis” that identifies adverse impacts or restricted employment opportunities). |
|
Harmonize federal efforts |
Clarify how affirmative action under Title VII interacts with other regulatory frameworks, such as Executive Order 11246 for federal contractors. |
‘A Defining Commitment’
EEOC chair Andrea Lucas said the purpose of the vote was to “reaffirm” (vs. eliminate) federal protections.
“As our nation approaches its 250th birthday, we are reminded that the founders’ vision rested on the enduring principle that every individual is created equal and, therefore, is entitled to equal treatment under the law,” she stated in an agency press release. “[This] action reaffirms that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all American workers and that equal opportunity remains a defining commitment of our democracy.”
The agency said it eliminated the related compliance manual because it was “made obsolete” by the recission of the original guidelines.
Editor’s Note: Additional Content
For more information and resources related to this article, see the pages below, which offer quick access to all WorldatWork content on these topics:
#1 Total Rewards & Comp Newsletter
Subscribe to Workspan Weekly and always get the latest news on compensation and Total Rewards delivered directly to you. Never miss another update on the newest regulations, court decisions, state laws and trends in the field.
