When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission opened an investigation into Nike’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices, it was unusual for a number of reasons. The federal agency’s mission has long been to enforce antidiscrimination laws, which involve pursuing claims brought by workers who had faced bias over their race or gender or other aspects of their identity. The Nike case—which suggested the company had discriminated against white employees—was a clear example of how the agency’s priorities had shifted under its current chair, Andrea Lucas.
In fact, Lucas herself had set the investigation into motion through a commissioner’s charge, when most EEOC cases are initiated by a worker complaint. And while investigations are supposed to be conducted privately, this one was thrust into the public earlier this year when the agency went to court to enforce a subpoena against Nike.
A New York Times report this week revealed that the investigation may have never gotten to that point if the EEOC had not scrapped a settlement agreement.
According to the Times, the agency had actually agreed to settle with Nike confidentially—up until President Trump assumed office. Nike signed a settlement agreement in early January 2025, but it was withdrawn after Trump returned to the White House. At that point, the EEOC’s requests for information became much broader, spanning everything from job descriptions and pay data to details on executive compensation and layoff criteria; the agency even asked to conduct interviews with Nike employees. When Nike continued pushing back, the EEOC resorted to a subpoena. (When reached by Fast Company, Nike and the EEOC were not immediately available for comment.)
As Fast Company has previously reported, it’s not atypical for the EEOC to use subpoenas to compel employers to share information. But going to court to enforce them is a bold move. “The only situation where something would go to the court for enforcement is when the employer doesn’t comply with that subpoena or, in the commission’s view, isn’t forthcoming enough,” former EEOC general counsel Karla Gilbride told Fast Company earlier this year. “And in my experience, that is pretty unusual.”
Nike described the enforcement action as a “surprising and unusual escalation.” The Times report notes that the company objected to the subpoena, even pointing to similarities between the case against Nike and a complaint that had been filed with the EEOC by America First Legal, the organization founded by Trump official Stephen Miller, in 2024.
The decision to drop the settlement and issue a subpoena seems in line with the EEOC’s priorities under Lucas, which appear to have been shaped by Trump’s executive orders targeting DEI practices. But it also suggests something that former EEOC officials have raised—that the agency wanted to draw attention to the case.
“This is an EEOC that wants to have a broad frontal attack on ill-defined DEI efforts,” former EEOC commissioner Chai Feldblum previously told Fast Company. “They have already achieved that goal with their public subpoena against Nike, regardless of how this particular case ends up playing out.”
As the investigation into Nike has unfolded, the EEOC has continued to pursue similar reverse discrimination cases, negotiating public settlements with a Planned Parenthood affiliate and Columbia University—the latter involving a $21 million payout, the largest public settlement with the EEOC in almost two decades.
If the Nike case reaches the Supreme Court, it could have major consequences for diversity programs in the workplace. In the meantime, however, the EEOC’s public pursuit of Nike may yield the intended effect on employers who are watching closely.
