When a former Nike employee joined the company a few years ago, she felt like she was in exactly the right place to work on diversity, equity, and inclusion. She believed in the sportswear giant’s DEI leadership and was moved by how John Donahoe, then the CEO, had spoken about corporate responsibility in public appearances.
{snip}
She didn’t know it, but Nike had become the target of a rather unusual investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Nike says it’s standard practice during any legal proceeding for the company to advise employees not to delete files or information.) As the federal agency tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace, the EEOC now fields more than 88,000 discrimination claims in a year.
But this wasn’t a routine investigation into worker complaints. The EEOC’s interest in Nike had been initiated by a commissioner, Andrea Lucas, rather than a specific claim of discrimination from an employee. Lucas—who Trump later appointed as chair of the EEOC—brought the charge in response to Nike’s DEI programs, alleging that the company has discriminated against white employees and job applicants by pursuing its diversity goals, which included tying some compensation to DEI metrics and providing career advancement opportunities for under-represented employees.
{snip}
Since becoming chair of the agency in early 2025, Lucas has made her intentions clear, embracing an agenda in line with Trump’s executive orders that prioritizes “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.” In a New York Times report this week, current and former EEOC employees claimed that the agency was relentlessly pursuing charges of discrimination against white men.
The investigation into Nike is a crucial flashpoint in the anti-DEI movement—one that, depending on the outcome, could have serious consequences for DEI programs across corporate America. At a time when employers across the U.S. have sought to distance themselves from DEI efforts that could prove legally risky, Nike’s public commitments to diversity work appear to be the very reason Lucas has taken aim at the company.
{snip}
Nike’s reputation as a progressive employer dates back decades, well before the company made Colin Kaepernick the face of a high-profile ad campaign. Back in 2002, Nike was one of just 13 employers to receive a top score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, an annual benchmarking survey that measures workplace inclusion. (In response to conservative backlash over the last few years, many companies have now stopped participating in the ranking altogether. Nike continues to participate.)
Before the Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ+ workers against discrimination, Nike was a vocal supporter of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which aimed to ban discrimination against gay workers; a leader on Nike’s diversity and inclusion team even testified before the Senate in 2009, making the business case for passing the bill.
By 2018, however, Nike was contending with a widely publicized gender discrimination lawsuit, amid myriad allegations of sexism and harassment within the company. (The lawsuit has yet to be resolved, despite progress on a tentative settlement last year.) Nike ousted several male employees when the issues came to light, and following an internal pay equity audit, the company awarded raises to over 7,000 employees.
A few years later, when many companies took pains to promote racial equity in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, Nike made bold commitments of its own: The company pledged to increase the number of women in leadership roles and boost the share of racial and ethnic minorities to 35% across its workforce; Nike also tied executive compensation to making progress on its DEI commitments.
Nike’s senior leadership also participated in an intensive six-week certificate program in 2020, spearheaded by diversity consultant and Northwestern University professor Alvin Tillery. His team trained 900 global vice presidents at Nike through a combination of live instruction and asynchronous video content. As for the scope of the program, Tillery described it as “one of the most significant corporate investments in their human capital” that he has seen across the landscape of DEI trainings.
{snip}
As the EEOC investigation has unfolded over the last two years, Nike claims to have cooperated with the agency while also pushing back on the full scope of its requests, arguing they are burdensome. “We have had extensive, good-faith participation in an EEOC inquiry into our personnel practices, programs, and decisions and have had ongoing efforts to provide information and engage constructively with the agency,” a Nike spokesperson said in a statement. “To date, we have shared thousands of pages of information and detailed written responses to the EEOC’s inquiry and are continuing our attempt to cooperate.” (Nike had also previously told Fast Company that the subpoena enforcement action felt like a “surprising and unusual escalation.”)
{snip}
In the case of Nike, the EEOC chose to enforce a subpoena in court, bringing the investigation into the public record. The EEOC does rely on subpoenas to ensure employers comply with the agency’s requests for information—but enforcing them in court is hardly standard practice.
{snip}
Chai Feldblum—a former EEOC commissioner and president of EEO Leaders, a group of former senior officials who worked at the EEOC and Department of Labor under previous administrations—says the investigation is far from over. When it does eventually come to a resolution, it could involve a lawsuit if the EEOC wants to make an example of Nike. But regardless of the outcome, Feldblum argues, the damage is already done: The EEOC has drawn plenty of attention to this case.
{snip}
Even if the company chooses to fight this investigation, Nike will likely be forced to make some concessions and changes to its DEI programs, much like its peers in the corporate world. The publicity around Nike’s case could set the stage for similar inquiries into other formidable employers, or the threat of a potential investigation could scare some companies into backing away from DEI more than they already have.
Just this month, IBM forked over $17 million to settle a case brought by the Justice Department, as part of an initiative targeting DEI programs across federal contractors. The government claimed that the company’s DEI programs—which allegedly considered demographic background as part of employment decisions—were unlawful. (IBM already reportedly made changes to some DEI programs last year or eliminated them outright.)
{snip}
In fact, there could already be similar investigations underway that have remained private thus far—or may never become public if companies capitulate to the agency’s demands. One former EEOC official who asked to remain anonymous told Fast Company that the agency is reportedly pursuing “weak charges” alleging anti-white discrimination and resorting to subpoena actions to obtain more information from employers, according to accounts from corporate counsel. Many employers are reportedly scared of getting negative publicity and doing their best to comply with the EEOC’s requests.
{snip}
The post ‘The Biggest Game Nike Is Ever Going to Play’: The Anti-White Discrimination Case That Could Change DEI Forever appeared first on American Renaissance.
American RenaissanceRead More
T1
