On February 4, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nike in the Eastern District of Missouri, claiming the company had not complied with the agency’s requests for information in its investigation that it discriminated against white employees and applicants. The case was filed in Missouri because the EEOC’s St. Louis office is leading the investigation even though the company’s headquarters are in Seattle, Washington.
Background
The investigation is based on a commissioner’s charge filed in 2024 by now-Chair Andrea Lucas that claimed Nike may have discriminated against white workers in hiring, promotion, and layoff decisions. The charge also claimed the company may have discriminated against white applicants and workers for internships, mentorships, and other leadership development programs. The charge claims Nike set goals to ensure 30% of its directors were racial and ethnic minorities and 35% of its workforce were made up of racial and ethnic minorities by 2025. In addition, the agency pointed out that the company tied executive compensation packages to these goals.
The agency in its filing stated it had made three requests for information beginning in December 2024, and when the company didn’t provide all the information requested, it filed a subpoena in September 2025 seeking additional information. After negotiations between the company and the EEOC over the subpoena, Nike did provide additional information, but the EEOC claimed it needed additional data and so filed the subpoena enforcement action.
Subpoena Enforcement Action
In the press release on the lawsuit, the EEOC stated it was seeking information that included criteria used in selecting employees for layoffs; information related to the company’s tracking and use of worker race and ethnicity data, including as a factor in setting executive compensation; and information about 16 programs that allegedly provided race-restricted mentoring, leadership, or career development opportunities.
Lucas issued a statement on the subpoena enforcement action, saying, “When there are compelling indications, including corporate admissions in extensive public materials, that an employer’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-related programs may violate federal prohibitions against race discrimination or other forms of unlawful discrimination, the EEOC will take all necessary steps—including subpoena enforcement actions—to ensure the opportunity to fully and comprehensively investigate.” Her statement went on to say, “Title VII’s prohibition of race-based employment discrimination is colorblind and requires the EEOC to protect employees of all races from unlawful employment practices. Thanks to President Trump’s commitment to enforcing our nation’s civil rights laws, the EEOC has renewed its focus on evenhanded enforcement of Title VII.”
In the petition to revoke the subpoena, Nike called the agency’s efforts a “fishing expedition” and argued the probe is overbroad, too burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information. According to the company, the agency’s demands would require the company to gather information related to every worker’s separation from the company over the last year, among other burdensome requests.
Conclusion
This is the second major subpoena enforcement over “illegal DEI” claims, both of which investigations were started by commissioner charges filed by Lucas. In November, the EEOC filed a subpoena enforcement action against Northwestern Mutual seeking additional information on white employees passed over for promotions given to women and people of color. The filing of subpoena enforcement actions allows the EEOC to discuss its investigations as otherwise the agency is banned from publicizing investigations until they are settled or litigation is filed.
Companies need to continually evaluate their DEI programs to ensure they don’t discriminate against any group. Because the EEOC now has a quorum, employers should expect the agency to increase its focus on DEI programs.