EEOC Charges Climbing

EEOC Charges Climbing

The government agency U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has released its annual enforcement data covering fiscal year 2016. The report confirms that workplace discrimination filings increased across every protected class, demonstrating a nationwide shift toward higher reporting rates, stronger enforcement scrutiny, broader retaliation awareness, expanded disability rights interpretation, increased record preservation before resignation, and more classification challenges even when employers maintain formal compliance policies.

Courts and workplace attorneys nationwide view this growth as evidence that employer risk now turns not just on having policies in place, but on how those policies are implemented including worker classification language strategy, arbitration-first dispute routing, onboarding contract fairness, retaliation-safe grievance documentation, hiring pipeline bias stacking, equal screening burdens, interactive accommodation duty evaluation, and statutory protection balancing.

Top Five EEOC Workplace Discrimination Charges 2016

According to the enforcement report from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the most frequently filed workplace discrimination categories in 2016 were:

1. Retaliation Workers increasingly face adverse action after reporting discrimination, requesting accommodations, or questioning hire and classification fairness. Retaliation claims often collapse when documentation is not preserved before resignation or arbitration routing drains transparency.
2. Race Hiring bias assumptions, résumé filtering interpretation loops, economic realities confusion in classification, and leadership stereotype stacking frequently impact minority applicants.
3. Disability Employers are required to evaluate accommodation requests through an interactive process, yet some maintain blanket disqualification policies that route disputes into arbitration instead of compliance fairness evaluation.
4. Gender Bias affects promotion perception, hiring narrative loops, contract interpretation biases, and workforce structuring labels that hide employment realities under other terminology.
5. Age Older applicants increasingly challenge exclusionary screening policies masked as neutrality but enforced through subjective assumption-based assessments.

Why This Increase Matters for Employers and Workers

This rise signals:

• Workers are reporting earlier and with more legal awareness
• Employers face increased liability scrutiny regardless of contract label choice
• Arbitration clauses may alter venue but do not remove liability
• Court precedent will continue developing unless claims collapse by process timing

View Article

If you have been a victim of workplace discrimination or retaliation, contact Gordon Law Group and we would be happy to review your claim.