The Federal Employee Survival Blog

Your go-to resource for navigating job uncertainty, protecting your rights, and staying ahead of federal workplace changes. Get the latest insights on policy shifts, legal updates, discipline defense, EEO protections, and career-saving strategies—so you’re always prepared, never blindsided.

📌 Stay informed. Stay protected. Stay in control.

EEOC Lawsuit Tests Limits of Executive Power on Discrimination Cases

civil rights act disparate impact eeoc lawsuit executive authority federal employment law Oct 24, 2025
 

Federal employees, here’s why you should care about a new lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In September, the EEOC quietly instructed its offices to halt all disparate impact investigations—the kind of cases where a workplace rule looks neutral on paper but, in practice, harms one protected group more than another.

Now, the agency itself is being sued. Former Amazon driver Leah Cross alleges that her discrimination charge was closed after the memo went out, despite clear legal grounds for investigation. Her attorney, Karla Gilbride, is the EEOC’s own former general counsel—fired earlier this year by President Trump. Their case argues that the memo is unlawful because Congress—not the President or agency leadership—sets the EEOC’s enforcement duties.

Under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the EEOC “shall investigate” discrimination charges. That word isn’t optional. An executive order can shape priorities, but it cannot rewrite statutory mandates.

The Real-World Impact of “Neutral” Rules

Leah’s underlying story highlights why disparate impact analysis matters. Amazon’s delivery routes allegedly left drivers without sufficient time for bathroom breaks. Male drivers often resorted to bottles in the vehicle, but female drivers—especially those managing menstruation—faced biological and dignity-based barriers. Same rule, same clock, but unequal effect.

That’s the heart of disparate impact law: it doesn’t punish employers for intent; it measures outcomes. If data show a significant gap among groups, the employer must show that the policy is job-related and that no less-restrictive, equally effective alternative exists. When applied correctly, the doctrine promotes both fairness and efficiency.

Why This Case Matters for Federal Employees

If an agency like the EEOC can suspend a congressionally mandated function by memo, that precedent echoes across the federal workforce. It risks sidelining statutory rights whenever political winds shift. For career civil servants who depend on clear, lawful standards—whether in performance reviews, promotions, or reductions in force—that’s a chilling prospect.

And for conscientious employers, it blurs the line between lawful compliance and political convenience. The rule of law works only when rules mean the same thing on Tuesday as they did on Monday.

 

 

Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE BRIEFING

Your Trusted Guide in Uncertain Times

Stay informed, stay protected. The Federal Employee Briefing delivers expert insights on workforce policies, legal battles, RTO mandates, and union updates—so you’re never caught off guard. With job security, telework, and agency shifts constantly evolving, we provide clear, concise analysis on what’s happening, why it matters, and what you can do next.

📩 Get the latest updates straight to your inbox—because your career depends on it.

You're safe with me. I'll never spam you or sell your contact info.