A Potential Bellwether: EEOC Reverse Discrimination Probe Against Nike

In what may be a signal of more “reverse discrimination” cases expected to be filed, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced it was investigating Nike for discrimination against white workers through the company’s diversity efforts. The move is the most significant action the EEOC has taken against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs under its new chair, Andrea Lucas. 

The investigation focuses on allegations that “Nike subjected white employees, applicants, and training program participants to disparate treatment based on race in various employment decisions, including layoffs, internship programs and mentoring, leadership development, and other career development programs,” the commission indicated. In a 2021 five-year plan for a more diverse work force, Nike management tied some executive compensation to diversity objectives, which included representation for women in leadership positions and a target of 35 percent representation of racial minorities in its U.S. work force.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs as a form of racial discrimination has been a focus of the White House. The term “reverse discrimination” refers to claims of discriminatory treatment of members of historically dominant or majority groups (e.g., white individuals, men) based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics often arising from affirmative action or DEI efforts.

 In the first few days of the second Trump Administration, the President signed three executive orders seeking to end DEI programs in the public and private sectors, declaring such programs “illegal and immoral.” One of the orders specifically instructs the attorney general to require each federal agency to identify nine large potential enforcement targets. 

In December of 2025, EEOC Chair Lucas posted a video on social media asking, “Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Contact the EEOC as soon as possible. Time limits are typically strict for filing a claim.”

The Rise of Chat GPT in Employee Complaints and Accommodation Requests

If you’ve recently received an employee complaint or accommodation request that sounds uncharacteristically formal or appears as though the employee has been coached by an attorney, you are not alone. The era of AI-generated employee communication has arrived and it is altering the way workplace concerns are escalated by employees.

Within the workplace, employees are leveraging AI requests primarily in two areas: Internal complaints and accommodation requests. Take for example an employee who normally speaks casually and who believes her supervisor is giving her more work than her male co-worker. In the past, this complaint may have come into HR in the form of a more informal interpersonal email complaint. 

When employing an AI prompt, however, such as “Draft a complaint to send to my HR manager. Include in it that I believe my supervisor is discriminating against me by giving me more assignments than my male coworker,” the complaint turns into a five paragraph template letter with legal buzzwords like “disparate treatment,” “appropriate corrective action,” “Title VII,” and “Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.” It also includes placeholders for the employee to fill in the specifics of particular incidents, the impact of those incidents on the employee’s work, the connection to a protected characteristic, and previous unsuccessful attempts by the employee to resolve the matter. While typically lacking detail, the template letter provides the necessary items to prompt an obligation for the employer to initiate an investigation or risk issues down the road in litigation.

Similarly, when prompted to draft an accommodation request to work remotely due to anxiety, ChatGPT again prepares a template letter with phrases like “condition that qualifies as a disability under applicable law,” “substantially limits one or more major life activities,” “reasonable accommodation,” "Americans with Disabilities Act” and “the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.” For example:

"Dear Human Resources,

I am writing to formally request a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA).

I have a medical condition that qualifies as a disability under applicable law and substantially limits one or more major life activities. This condition affects my ability to work effectively in a traditional in-office environment. After consultation with my healthcare provider, I am requesting the accommodation of working remotely.

Allowing me to work remotely would enable me to manage my condition while continuing to perform the essential functions of my position in a productive and reliable manner. I am able to meet all job expectations, including performance, communication, and availability, in a remote work setting.

I am requesting to engage in the interactive process to discuss this accommodation and any alternatives that may be effective. I am happy to provide medical documentation from my healthcare provider to support this request, if needed.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your assistance and look forward to working collaboratively to identify a reasonable accommodation."

While Chat GPT may give an air of formality or legal formalism to what would have been simple complaints or requests, it does not suddenly make these complaints or requests more meritorious and employers should respond as they would to any other employee complaint or request.

Editor’s Note: We will be conducting a webinar Handling Accommodation Requests and the Interactive Process on Thursday, March 19th at 9:00 a.m. An announcement will go out to our subscribers next week. To enroll in advance of the announcement, contact Jessenia Narvaez at jessenianarvaez@robertnoonan.com.

Connecticut General Assembly Reconvened for 2026

The 2026 Session of the Connecticut General Assembly opened on February 4, 2026. This year is considered a “short session” that runs from February through June. Each year, the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) provides a brief description of important issues the General Assembly may face in the upcoming session. The issues are based on interim studies; research requests; and non-confidential discussions with legislators, other participants, and executive branch agencies.

Below are some of the issues that OLR has identified as potential areas the General Assembly will address through legislation this session:

Association Health Plans

The legislature may take up the issue of expanding access to more affordable insurance coverage through multiple employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs) or Association Health Plans (AHP). A MEWA generally allows smaller businesses to join together to offer health insurance and other benefits to each business’s employees and their dependents depending on whether the companies form a bona fide association that offers an Association Health Plan.

Connecticut considered authorizing and regulating AHPs during the 2023 session in a bill that would have required self-funded MEWAs to be licensed with the Insurance Department. It also would have required both self-funded and fully insured MEWAs to (1) meet minimum federal Affordable Care Act standards (i.e. essential benefits), (2) cover all state-mandated benefits, (3) not exclude preexisting conditions coverage, and (4) have a minimum 60% actuarial value. Given the impending health insurance affordability issue, the legislature could consider similar proposals again in 2026.

Striking Workers 

Last session, the General Assembly passed a bill that would have allowed workers on strike to collect unemployment after 14 consecutive days on strike. The bill was ultimately vetoed by Governor Lamont. The legislature may revisit the issue again this year.

Warehouse Workers

In 2025, the legislature considered a bill that would have created protections for warehouse workers by limiting the extent to which certain warehouse distribution centers could require their employees to meet production quotas. It would have generally applied to employers that employed at least (1) 100 employees at a single warehouse distribution center in the state or (2) 1,000 employees in total at multiple warehouse distribution centers in the state that are owned and operated by the same business entity. The legislature may consider similar legislation in the upcoming session. 

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

With the growing use of artificial intelligence, the General Assembly may consider various proposals related to AI. These proposals could include, among other things, (1) requiring businesses to make certain disclosures when consumers are interacting with AI, (2) prohibiting the use of certain deceptive AI-generated media in elections, (3) creating a regulatory “sandbox” (i.e. programs to allow testing with reduced requirements), and (4) conducting various studies on the feasibility of incorporating AI in different areas.

Municipal Youth Camps

Last year, the legislature considered Senate Bill 6, which would have required municipal youth camps (those serving children ages 3 to 16) to be licensed by the Office of Early Childhood (OEC), therefore subjecting them to the existing licensure requirements for non-municipal youth camps. These requirements are related to immunizations, medication administration, inspections and investigations, staff criminal background checks, and reporting suspected child abuse and neglect. The bill would have allowed OEC to take disciplinary actions against municipal youth camps but prohibited OEC from requiring these camps to retain an on-call physician or advanced practice registered nurse (as private camps must). The Senate passed SB 6, but the House did not take it up for a vote. This year, the legislature may choose to consider similar municipal youth camp licensure policies.

Targeted Tax Cuts

The legislature may consider using surplus revenue to fund targeted tax relief programs, including reported proposals to establish (1) a state-level child tax credit or deduction and (2) an enhanced property tax credit against the state income tax. In considering these tax cut proposals, the legislature is likely to renew the debate over the state’s “fiscal guardrails” that, among other things, direct surplus revenue to paying down the state’s unfunded pension liabilities.

Medicaid Work Requirements

The legislature may consider bills to plan for and implement changes to HUSKY, the state’s Medicaid program, in response to new federal Medicaid requirements included in the federal budget bill, HR 1. Among other changes, which take effect between 2026 and 2028, Connecticut must generally (1) implement work requirements as a condition for Medicaid eligibility; (2) verify Medicaid eligibility every six months rather than annually as under current law; (3) reduce eligibility for certain noncitizens who are eligible under current law; and (4) implement cost sharing (e.g., co-pays) for certain services. Legislators may consider ways to mitigate coverage loss and increased costs for Medicaid enrollees under these new requirements.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

The legislature may also consider bills related to the state’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in response to new federal requirements included in HR 1. Among other things, HR 1 requires states to (1) expand work requirements for SNAP eligibility and eliminate certain work requirement exemptions, including those for veterans and people experiencing homelessness, and (2) reduce eligibility for certain non-citizens.

Additionally, HR 1 reduces federal funding for SNAP, shifts some of the cost of providing SNAP benefits to states, and imposes penalties on states with high error rates. Legislators may consider ways to mitigate the number of Connecticut residents who will lose SNAP benefits under these new rules, as well as respond to any resulting increase in funding or administrative needs at DSS, Connecticut’s SNAP administrator. 

In the 2025 November Special Session, the General Assembly passed legislation aimed at reducing SNAP error rates by creating a new standard deduction for calculating self-employment earnings when determining SNAP eligibility. In the upcoming session, legislators may consider additional ways to reduce error rates to avoid incurring penalties under HR 1.