Picture this: Hundreds of your female employees are descending on sunny San Francisco for a two-day company-sponsored networking and professional development retreat. The itinerary is packed: keynote speakers, team-building exercises, career discussions, and a social reception—all on the company's dime. Female attendees are excused from their regular duties, paid their normal wages, and not required to use vacation days to attend. You stayed behind, but reports from the event are unanimously positive.
Until now. Don is in your office. He's asking why he must be at his desk while his female colleagues get to enjoy the retreat. Days later, Don files a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Soon after, the EEOC files a federal lawsuit against your company.
Sound far-fetched? According to the EEOC's newly filed lawsuit against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc. ("Coca-Cola Northeast"), this litigation risk is very real.
The Lawsuit
In its recently filed lawsuit, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged that Coca-Cola Northeast violated federal law when it excluded male employees from an employer-sponsored event.
According to the complaint, in September 2024, Coca-Cola Northeast invited approximately 250 female employees to the Mohegan Sun Casino and Resort in Connecticut for a two-day employer-sponsored trip and professional development retreat. The retreat included a social reception, team-building exercises, and recreational activities. Female attendees also heard from speakers, including corporate executives from various companies.
The EEOC alleges that Coca-Cola Northeast excused female employees who attended the event from their regular work duties over the two days, paid them their regular wages without requiring them to use vacation, and paid for lodging, meals, and related expenses. The company did not invite male employees to attend.
According to the EEOC, Coca-Cola's exclusion of male employees from attending and participating in the company-sponsored retreat violated Title VII by denying male employees employment-related benefits. In addition to injunctive relief, the EEOC is suing for compensatory damages for the aggrieved male employees and punitive damages.
Why the EEOC Is Increasing Scrutiny of DEI Programs
The EEOC's new lawsuit is the latest in a long line of Trump administration initiatives targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Since assuming office, the administration has:
- Issued an executive order, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," to eliminate the "illegal" diversity, equity, and inclusion policies of federal agencies and government contractors
- Created technical assistance guidelines explaining "What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work"
- Expanded the Department of Justice's definition of "illegal DEI"
Employer Takeaways: DEI Compliance and Title VII Risk
The EEOC is signaling an uptick in its enforcement of its DEI-related guidance and priorities, and the Coca-Cola Northeast lawsuit should serve as a warning for employers that the current EEOC may investigate your DEI programs and initiatives. Additionally, the current EEOC has made it clear that it will apply Title VII with equal, if not greater, force to discrimination against men as it will to discrimination against women. With that in mind, employers should consider the following:
- Review employer-sponsored events for trait-based exclusions. Whether it is a retreat, a networking dinner, a mentorship program, a training session, or an employee resource group event, any opportunity restricted to employees of one sex (or any protected class) carries risk of an enforcement action or lawsuit under Title VII. According to the EEOC, excluding employees from an employer-sponsored event on the basis of a protected characteristic constitutes unlawful discrimination.
- Audit your DEI programs with counsel. Employers should conduct a privileged review of DEI initiatives, employee resource groups, fellowship programs, and targeted training sessions to identify and remediate any practices that could be construed as discriminatory.
- Train managers and human resources personnel. Managers and human resources personnel may not appreciate that even events with laudable intentions can create a risk of liability. Revised training should make clear that Title VII's prohibitions apply equally across all protected groups, and that any complaint of exclusion from a workplace event or program must be taken seriously.
- Remember Muldrow. We previously explained that in the Supreme Court's recent Muldrow v. City of St. Louis decision the Court dramatically lowered the bar for an employee to prove that an employment action negatively affected the terms and conditions of their employment. Employees are no longer required to prove that the harm caused by an employment action was significant, serious, or substantial—just that "some" harm occurred. The EEOC's case against Coca-Cola Northeast is a powerful reminder of the new "some harm" test—even though the male employees suffered no termination, demotion, transfer, or pay cut, the EEOC still maintains they suffered "some harm" and sued. Employers should be reviewing job actions, including the loss of workplace opportunities like networking events and social receptions, with a heightened level of care.
The current EEOC is scrutinizing employers' DEI-related practices with unprecedented intensity. Even the most well-intentioned programs may be challenged.
If your organization has questions about structuring compliant workplace events and DEI initiatives, or how to navigate the EEOC's ever-evolving enforcement priorities more generally, please contact the authors of this article or any attorney in Venable's Labor and Employment Group.