The EEOC Just Rescinded Its Affirmative Action Guidelines. Here’s What That Means for Your DEI Practices.

For 40 years, the EEOC’s Affirmative Action Guidelines and the related Compliance Manual Section 607 gave employers a measure of cover for “race, sex, or national origin conscious” decisions made to remedy past discrimination. That cover is now gone. 

The Commission voted this month to rescind both documents. If your organization has a legacy affirmative action plan, a diversity-conscious hiring framework, or promotion criteria built with protected characteristics in mind, this is the moment to review it. 

What Actually Happened 

The EEOC rescinded two policy documents dating back to 1979: 

• The Affirmative Action Guidelines: interpretive guidance titled “Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as Amended” 

• Compliance Manual Section 607 on Affirmative Action: the related compliance manual section, rescinded as obsolete once the underlying guidelines were withdrawn 

The Commission’s reasoning was direct: the 1979 guidelines were written to protect employers who changed their practices to improve opportunities for minorities and women through decisions that were explicitly “race, sex, or national origin conscious.” But in the four decades since, the Supreme Court has adopted a strict colorblind interpretation of Title VII. 

Why This Isn’t a Standalone Event 

This rescission doesn’t arrive in isolation. It’s the latest step in a pattern this Commission has been building for over a year: 

The National Enforcement Plan (FY2025–2029), signed by Chair Lucas in June, replaced the prior administration’s Strategic Enforcement Plan two years ahead of schedule and reoriented the agency’s priorities toward individual-based enforcement. 

Trump v. Slaughter reinforced the same individual-rights framing at the Supreme Court level. 

Colorado’s own legislative and judicial activity — including Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections on DEI training — has echoed a similar theme at the state level. 

Read together, the message from federal enforcement is consistent: employment decisions need to be grounded in individualized, job-related criteria — not in group-based remedial frameworks, however well-intentioned. 

What This Means for Voluntary D&I Practices

Here’s where I want to be direct with clients: rescission of guidance is not the same thing as a change in the statute. Title VII’s text hasn’t moved. What’s changed is the interpretive scaffolding the EEOC has built around it. 

That distinction matters practically. Employers should not read this as “diversity and inclusion programs are now illegal.” Many voluntary D&I initiatives — inclusive sourcing, mentorship programs, bias-awareness training, broadened outreach — do not use protected characteristics as selection criteria and remain entirely lawful. The exposure sits specifically with practices that use race, sex, national origin, or another protected characteristic as a factor in an actual employment decision: who gets hired, who gets promoted, who gets into a leadership pipeline, and who gets laid off. 

If your program affects the pool of candidates without affecting the decision about any individual candidate, you’re in a different — and generally safer — legal posture than a program that factors protected status into the final call. 

What Employers Should Do Now 

1. Inventory your D&I and affirmative action documentation. Pull any legacy affirmative action plans, diversity hiring goals, promotion frameworks, or DEI policies, especially anything drafted more than a few years ago, when this guidance was still active and shaped how such programs were typically built.
2. Separate outreach from decision-making. Programs designed to widen the applicant pool (targeted recruiting, partnerships with diverse professional organizations, expanded outreach) stand on much firmer ground than programs that weigh protected characteristics in actual selection, promotion, or compensation decisions.
3. Document the “why,” not just the “what.” For any program that touches selection criteria, be able to articulate the legitimate, job-related business rationale (independent of protected characteristics) behind it. If the honest answer involves a demographic target or quota, that’s the part that needs to change.
4. Pay close attention if you’re a federal contractor or public employer. Federal contractors and public sector employers face overlapping frameworks and, in the public sector context, share jurisdiction between the EEOC and the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. This rescission doesn’t rewrite those separate obligations, but it does reflect the same enforcement direction across agencies.
5. Treat this as a compliance review, not a panic response. The goals behind most voluntary D&I programs (building a qualified, diverse workforce and expanding opportunity) are not themselves unlawful. What’s changed is the legal margin for how those goals can be pursued. A calm, documented review now is far preferable to reconstructing your rationale after a charge has already been filed.

The Bottom Line 

Guidance documents shape how the EEOC interprets and enforces the law, even when the underlying statute stays the same. This rescission tells employers plainly where this Commission’s enforcement priorities sit: individualized, job-related decision-making, not group-based frameworks, however longstanding or well-intentioned those frameworks may be. 

If your organization’s affirmative action plan, diversity hiring criteria, or promotion framework predates this shift, now is the time for a legal review, before an EEOC charge forces the issue. 

FAQ’s

Did the EEOC just make DEI illegal?
No. The rescission removes specific interpretive guidance that gave cover to affirmative action programs using protected characteristics as selection criteria. It does not change Title VII itself, and it does not make diversity and inclusion efforts unlawful. Voluntary D&I initiatives that don’t factor race, sex, or national origin into actual employment decisions — inclusive sourcing, mentorship, bias-awareness training, broadened outreach — remain lawful.

What exactly did the EEOC rescind?
Two documents: the 1979 Affirmative Action Guidelines (“Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as Amended”) and the related Compliance Manual Section 607 on Affirmative Action, which the Commission rescinded as obsolete once the underlying guidelines were withdrawn.

Do I need to shut down our diversity hiring program?
Not necessarily — but you need to look closely at how it operates. The key question is whether protected characteristics factor into an actual decision about an individual candidate (hiring, promotion, layoff selection) versus simply widening the pool of applicants who are considered. Outreach-stage programs sit on much firmer ground than programs that weigh protected status at the decision stage.

What should we do with our existing affirmative action plan?
Pull it and review it, especially if it was drafted more than a few years ago, when the now-rescinded guidance still shaped how these plans were typically built. Look for any promotion criteria, hiring goals, or selection frameworks that use protected characteristics as a factor, and be ready to articulate a job-related rationale for anything that touches selection criteria.

Does this affect federal contractors differently?
Federal contractors and public employers face overlapping frameworks, including shared jurisdiction between the EEOC and the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in the public sector context. This rescission doesn’t rewrite those separate obligations, but it reflects the same enforcement direction across agencies, so contractors should treat this as an added reason to review, not a reason to assume they’re exempt.