The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has decided to drop its subpoena enforcement action against Nike. This decision follows Nike’s compliance with requests for information as part of an investigation into its diversity and inclusion policies.
On Wednesday, the EEOC filed a motion to dismiss the case in Missouri federal court. This development comes seven months after the agency initially sought a court order to compel Nike to adhere to the subpoena fully. According to the court filing, Nike provided relevant information and documents from March to August, resolving the core issues in the matter.
An EEOC spokesperson expressed satisfaction with Nike’s compliance, albeit without court intervention, but refrained from further comments. Nike opted not to provide any remarks on the matter.
Nike has been among the companies targeted by EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, who is pursuing corporate diversity and inclusion policies. These policies, according to claims from the Trump administration, discriminate against white men and other demographics. Notably, the EEOC has also filed a lawsuit against The New York Times, alleging discrimination against a white editor who was passed over for a position in favor of a multiracial woman.
The investigation into Nike arose not from an employee’s charge but from a complaint filed by Lucas in May 2024. She alleged discrimination against white employees, supported by information about Nike’s diversity programs and data showing increased minority representation in leadership. Lucas argued that such programs, along with Nike’s goal of achieving 35% racial and ethnic minority representation by 2025, contributed to the unfair treatment of white employees.
Typically, EEOC investigations remain confidential unless they result in fines, legal action, or settlements. This case provided insight into an otherwise confidential process. The EEOC sought extensive data from Nike, including details on employment decisions, selection criteria for layoffs, and information on programs allegedly restricting opportunities based on race.
Uncertainty remained about whether Nike fulfilled all data requests. In February, Nike described the court’s involvement as unexpected, noting they provided thousands of pages of information and agreed to share more. Nike argued many requests were too broad, deeming them a “fishing expedition” aimed at uncovering potential wrongdoing without concrete evidence.