Checking the Wrong Box: Limitations of the Eeoc's Effectiveness for Supporting Organizational diversity and Inclusion in the 2020S

This thesis explores the impacts of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and federal discrimination laws on organizational diversity and inclusion (D&I) initiatives. Using an inductive thematic analysis of qualitative data from phone interviews with diversity leaders in a variety of roles and fields, I explore the unintended negative impacts that a fear of litigation has on D&I initiatives. My analysis reveals that the EEOC is distorting and undermining organizational D&I with dated and narrow categories of demographic identity, and creating a fear of litigation for those who seek to remedy the shortcomings of the EEOC by going beyond compliance. As it currently stands, those who do not meet compliance standards and are truly discriminatory are being threatened by litigation similarly to those who are seeking to go beyond compliance and encourage strong diversity and inclusion practices because of a lack of EEOC guidance on how to do so legally. In order to allow organizations to advance these initiatives and for the EEOC to be effective and relevant, the questions for reporting EEOC data need to be updated to reflect a more inclusive picture of the diversity and intersectionality of populations that organizations employ. My analysis further suggests that if the EEOC is unable do so, they risk becoming an impediment to D&I initiatives. By aggregating the experiences and opinions of a variety of diversity leaders about the EEOC and examining the ways in which it unintentionally negatively impacts D&I, I contribute to the collective knowledge of organizational D&I initiatives in general and offer recommendations for the ways in which the EEOC, organizations, and managers can be more inclusive and representative in the 2020s.