Organizations and HR teams should pay close attention to the recent lawsuit filed by the U.S. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast.
At a high level, this case focuses on a diversity event that allegedly limited participation based on sex. But the bigger issue is not the event itself. It is what it signals about how these programs are being evaluated and the critical audits every organization should be conducting on its existing programming.
Good intentions do not protect employers from misconduct claims, investigations and even settlements. The lawsuit paints a stark picture of what can happen when these situations are mishandled, and the cost organizations must pay as a result.
Where the Risk Actually Starts
Most organizations are not trying to increase risk with these programs. The goal is usually clear: support employees, create opportunities and address potential gaps that might exist.
However well-intentioned, these programs can unintentionally exclude certain groups from participating, often due to protected characteristics. In the lawsuit against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, the EEOC alleges the company hosted a fully paid, two-day development event in September 2024 that was open only to female employees, excluding male employees from participating. The EEOC argues that this type of gender-based exclusion from an employer-sponsored program may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The investigation will now take a closer look at whether participation in employer initiatives was limited, either formally or informally, based on protected characteristics.
While this example formally excluded a specific group, it’s important to note that exclusions do not have to be built formally into the program to be discriminatory. If a program ends up excluding employees by a protected characteristic in practice, even unintentionally, that is discrimination. The EEOC is designed to pursue this kind of issue, and unfortunately, many organizations are not designed to withstand the consequences.
Therefore, a proactive approach to reviewing and auditing programs, coupled with clear understandings and designations for all programs, is critical for HR teams and organizations to mitigate any potential risk, while still providing exceptional programming and offerings for all employees.
Where HR Teams Get Tripped Up
In most cases, the problem is not a single decision. The program is created out of a well-intentioned basis with the goal of bolstering employees and the organization. That decision does not create risk. Instead, small gaps, lack of clear programming and poor communication can create small gaps that add up over time.
Common examples of these gaps include:
- A program is technically open to everyone in the organization, but only certain employees are encouraged to attend
- Managers describe the program as being intended for a specific group
- Eligibility is not clearly defined, so participation varies across teams
- There is no written explanation of how the program is structured
None of these examples seem like a major issue on their own, but together, they create inconsistency, which leads to risk.
When something is challenged, HR is the team expected to explain how it works, why it is compliant, and how they are mitigating any organizational risk. If the answer is not clear, the problem can grow exponentially.
Why Intent Does Not Carry Weight
There is a common assumption that if the purpose of a program is positive, it will be viewed that way. However, that is not how the EEOC evaluates employers, and it’s not how HR teams should evaluate programming. No matter the intention, every program and offering must be inclusive, providing equal opportunity to everyone within the organization.
If participation rules are not structured consistently, or if access appears to be limited based on a protected characteristic, that is where exposure exists. And the risk does not end there. If an incident does arise, organizations must have methods to investigate any reports of discrimination in their programs. Standard reporting processes, such as timely, third-party investigations, can help pinpoint issues before things escalate, allowing an organization to course-correct a program before a claim is filed with the EEOC. This will not only protect the organization but could also save millions from legal and reputational risk.
What HR Teams Should Be Doing Now
In general, all organizational programming should be regularly evaluated, not just for compliance purposes. Understanding the impact, opportunities for improvement and relevance of all programming can help further refine and develop offerings. In addition, HR teams should take a closer look at the structure of each existing program to understand how they are built and managed, who has access to participate in them, how they are communicated within the organization and more. There are a few practical steps HR teams can take right away.
- Define eligibility clearly. Every program should have straightforward, job-related participation criteria. If HR cannot explain who is eligible in a simple, consistent way, it needs to be clarified. The key is to ensure that employees are not limited or excluded from participation based on protected characteristics and that opportunities are applied fairly and consistently across the board.
- Make participation consistent. If a program is open, it needs to be open in practice. That includes how it is promoted, the messaging surrounding it and how employees are encouraged to participate.
- Put structure in writing. This is where organizations fall short. HR should be able to point to documentation that explains:
- Who is eligible
- How participation works
- How the program is communicated
If that does not exist, it is harder to defend later.
- Align with managers before rollout. Managers and leadership play a large role in how programs are positioned. If they’re describing participation differently across teams, that creates inconsistency regardless of whether the program itself was designed correctly.
The Bottom Line For HR
This case is not about one organization or one event. It reflects a broader shift in how these programs should be executed. The takeaway is simple. Structure initiatives so eligibility is defensible, participation is consistent, and the program can be clearly explained in writing.
If that structure does not exist, a well-intentioned program can quickly turn into a complaint, an investigation and a problem for HR teams to solve and organizations to pay the price.
Jared Pope is the Founder and CEO of Work Shield, the only end-to-end solution that manages workplace harassment and discrimination from start to finish. A seasoned Benefits and Employment Law attorney, Jared has more than 20 years of experience in ERISA, compliance and employment matters. He founded Work Shield in 2018 to give employers a proactive and comprehensive way to address misconduct while reducing the legal, reputational and financial risks tied to workplace misconduct.