The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has initiated a federal investigation into Nike, Inc., following allegations that the company's diversity policies may discriminate against White employees. This investigation was disclosed in a motion filed in a Missouri federal court, requesting full compliance with a subpoena for company information.
Nike has described the action as an "escalation" and affirmed its commitment to fair employment practices.
Overview of the Investigation
The EEOC's investigation specifically focuses on potential discrimination against White employees. The agency suggests this may be partly linked to Nike's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) objectives, including its 2025 targets. The subpoena enforcement action reflects a broader shift in discrimination enforcement priorities for the agency.
The EEOC's filing referenced:
"all White employees, former employees, prospective employees, and current and prospective training program applicants and participants who have been, continue to be, or may be in the future adversely affected by the [alleged] unlawful employment practices."
The filing did not name individual victims in the proceedings.
Subpoena Details and Scope
The EEOC is requesting information from Nike dating back to 2018. The subpoena seeks detailed information on various aspects of Nike's employment practices, including:
- Criteria used for selecting employees for layoffs.
- Methods for tracking and utilizing worker race and ethnicity data.
- Details on programs that allegedly provided race-restricted mentoring, leadership, or career development opportunities. The agency specifically sought information about 16 such programs.
- Allegations concerning "race-based workforce representation quotas" and whether race influenced decisions regarding layoffs and promotions.
The EEOC filed the enforcement action because, according to the agency, Nike did not voluntarily provide all information required by the subpoena.
Origin of the Investigation
The investigation did not originate from a worker complaint. Instead, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas filed a commissioner's charge in May 2024. This charge followed a letter to the EEOC from America First Legal, a legal group, which outlined complaints against Nike and advocated for an investigation.
Ms. Lucas's charge was based on publicly shared information about Nike's diversity commitments, including a 2021 goal to achieve 35% representation of racial and ethnic minorities in its corporate workforce by 2025.
Ms. Lucas has expressed concerns regarding certain diversity and inclusion policies, which she views as potentially discriminatory, and has prioritized addressing discrimination against White individuals.
She has also invited individuals who identify as White males and believe they have experienced discrimination based on race or sex to inquire about potential claims.
Nike's Response and Legal Arguments
Nike has stated its cooperation with the EEOC, describing the subpoena as a "surprising and unusual escalation." The company reported sharing thousands of pages of information and detailed written responses, with additional information continuing to be provided. Nike maintains that its programs and practices adhere to all applicable anti-discrimination laws and are consistent with its obligations.
In a 2025 legal filing, Nike's attorneys argued for the revocation of the subpoena, citing that its requests are:
"unduly burdensome, vague, overbroad, disproportionate to the needs of the investigation, seek irrelevant and time-barred information, and constitute an impermissible fishing expedition."
The company indicated it would continue to cooperate with the EEOC and respond to the petition.
Legal Context
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from using race as a criterion in employment decisions. Many U.S. companies, including Nike, made diversity commitments after the 2020 racial justice protests. These companies generally stated their objectives were goals to be achieved through broadened recruitment and bias elimination, rather than through the implementation of quotas.