DOJ Opinion on EEOC Disparate-Impact Guidelines: What Employers Should Know

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that its Office of Legal Counsel has concluded that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s disparate-impact guidelines under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional. The DOJ’s position is that the guidelines improperly allow liability based on unequal employment outcomes alone, without sufficient regard to an employer’s intent, and that they may pressure employers into race-conscious decision-making to avoid enforcement risk. The announcement also ties the opinion to Executive Order 14281 (“Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy”), which rejects disparate-impact liability where it creates what the administration characterizes as a presumption of unlawful discrimination based on differences in outcomes among protected groups.

According to the DOJ, employers may continue to use hiring and promotion tools such as aptitude tests, knowledge-based assessments, criminal-background checks, and other job-related selection criteria without violating Title VII merely because those practices produce different demographic outcomes. The opinion states that, to justify such practices, employers need only show that the challenged practice is reasonable, useful, or serves a valid business purpose. It also emphasizes that plaintiffs pursuing disparate-impact claims must identify a specific employment practice that caused the disparity and point to an equally effective alternative that would reduce the challenged disparity.

For employers, the immediate practical effect is likely to be a shift in federal enforcement posture rather than an automatic elimination of disparate-impact risk. The DOJ opinion is influential within the executive branch, and the EEOC’s current leadership has welcomed the analysis, but the opinion is not the same as a binding Supreme Court decision. Employers should therefore avoid assuming that disparate-impact claims have disappeared entirely, particularly because courts, state agencies, and private plaintiffs may continue to test the boundaries of Title VII and related state laws.

The best course for employers is to treat the development as an opportunity to reassess, not abandon, disciplined employment practices. Selection criteria should still be tied to legitimate business needs, consistently applied, documented, and periodically reviewed for fairness and job relevance. Employers that rely on testing, background checks, educational requirements, algorithmic screening, or other structured decision tools should confirm that those tools measure qualities genuinely related to the role and that managers are trained to avoid intentional discrimination. In short, the DOJ opinion may reduce certain federal disparate-impact enforcement pressures, but it also increases the importance of careful documentation, neutral standards, and sound legal review as the doctrine continues to evolve.

Employers should also keep in mind that some states may take a different approach through legislation or enforcement policy. For example, Illinois Senate Bill 3777, the Civil Rights Safeguard Act, would codify disparate-impact protections under the Illinois Human Rights Act and expressly preserve such claims in areas including employment. New Jersey has taken a similar position by regulation: its Division on Civil Rights adopted rules under the Law Against Discrimination, effective December 15, 2025, codifying disparate-impact liability for facially neutral employment practices that disproportionately harm protected groups, including selection procedures and automated decision-making tools.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.