Amazon Driver Sues EEOC Over Alleged Policy Ending Disparate-Impact Investigations

A new lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C. challenges what the plaintiff calls the EEOC’s “Disparate Impact Rule”—an internal directive alleged to order the administrative closure of all pending charges based solely on disparate-impact discrimination and to halt conciliation of such claims. The complaint asserts that the EEOC adopted this rule in September 2025 following President Trump’s Executive Order 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy (Apr. 28, 2025), which instructed agencies to deprioritize enforcement of statutes incorporating disparate-impact liability.

Plaintiff Leah Cross, a former Amazon delivery driver, alleges that her sex-based class charge was closed under this directive after she claimed Amazon’s delivery-quota policies disproportionately harmed female drivers. The suit names both the EEOC and Acting Chair Andrea Lucas in her official capacity and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

Legal Basis of the Challenge

The complaint asserts that the EEOC’s rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, exceeds statutory authority, and was issued without the notice-and-comment procedures required for substantive rulemaking. Title VII requires the EEOC to investigate every discrimination charge and, where reasonable cause is found, to pursue conciliation. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The ADEA imposes a similar duty to conciliate all age discrimination charges. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2). According to the filing, the agency’s categorical refusal to process disparate-impact charges ignores those statutory commands.

Why Disparate Impact Matters

Disparate-impact discrimination arises when a facially neutral employment policy disproportionately affects a protected group and cannot be justified as job-related and consistent with business necessity. The Supreme Court first recognized this theory under Title VII in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), and Congress later codified it through the Civil Rights Act of 1991. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k). The Court extended the doctrine to age discrimination in Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005).

The complaint emphasizes that the EEOC process—investigation, data requests, and conciliation—provides critical access to evidence that private plaintiffs might not otherwise obtain before filing suit. By terminating those processes, the plaintiff argues, the agency forces workers to file in federal court without the investigative record Congress intended.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

Although this case targets agency policy rather than employer conduct, it underscores that neutral rules can still generate liability if they disproportionately affect a protected group. Employers should ensure that selection devices, productivity measures, and algorithmic screening tools are validated for business necessity and periodically reviewed for adverse impact.

Key points to consider:

• Maintain documentation supporting each job-related requirement or productivity metric.

• Conduct and retain adverse-impact analyses for hiring, promotion, and discipline data.

• When using AI or third-party screening systems, obtain vendor bias-testing results and keep internal validation studies.

• Monitor developments in this litigation and potential EEOC guidance revisions once judicial review concludes.

The Broader Implication

The lawsuit tests how far an executive branch agency can narrow its enforcement scope when Congress has clearly defined its investigatory obligations and when the Supreme Court and Congress have both recognized disparate-impact liability. Regardless of outcome, employers remain best protected by maintaining objective, validated, and well-documented employment practices.