Articles

July 2026 Leadership Response

THE LEADERSHIP TRAINING/MENTORING CORNER

In the August 2025 Newsletter, we started a series called “The Leadership/Mentoring Corner” in which we posed a thought-provoking situation for you to think about and put yourself into, asking yourself, “What are your next steps?” 

JULY LEADERSHIP SITUATION

Barry has just accepted a position at a 30-year-old technology industry business. The position he accepted is a newly created position that reports to the Board of Directors and is charged with developing a new corporate culture for the business and implementing a management team concept, something the business has never had before.

Barry has an MBA from a major Ivy League college and has worked in the people and culture space for a large energy industry leader for 10 years.

After polling several Silver Fox Advisors, the following steps and/or actions are being recommended.

What should Barry’s next steps be with the Board?

1.     Barry should ask the Board to provide him with a written, detailed scope of the work its members want him to do, with a time frame outlining specific milestone checkpoints, including when they expect the work to be completed.

2.     Barry should also ask the Board to assign one director he would report directly to; that director would be the only board member from whom he would receive directions and feedback.

3.     Additionally, Barry needs to ask the Board for a budget for which he has sole accountability, the goal being getting the job done.

4.     It would also be a good thing for Barry to request a meeting with the company’s management team and the full Board to have the entire scope of work laid out in detail so that everyone hears the same message at the same time and is on the same page.

5.     Barry needs to ask for an employment contract with the specific engagement assigned included. In addition, there should be an incentive for Barry to complete the assigned engagement ahead of schedule, and employment with the company should be offered after the assignment has been completed. And finally, a cash payment if the Board aborts the project.

What should Barry’s next steps be with the business’ present leadership?

1.     Barry should meet with each member of the present leadership team and ask for their individual support for the project.

2.     Barry should also meet with the entire team after the one-on-one meetings and seek input and feedback. If the project is going to be successful long-term, the present leadership team needs to have total buy-in of the project and also feel as if they had input regarding the final document and that the entire project was not just a top-down cram-down. 

3.     Barry should provide feedback and regular updates to the leadership team.

4.     Barry needs to identify any individual(s) who are not on board with the overall project and try to work to get them on board, or report the issue to the Board.

If you need assistance in becoming a better leader, I recommend you start by contacting Silver Fox Advisors. Silver Fox Advisors are former or present business owners themselves, and they have leadership experience in running a business, and in some cases several businesses, and have dealt with unforeseen and unplanned situations throughout their careers. We encourage you to visit our website at www.silverfox.org to select a Silver Fox Advisor and also to learn more about the Silver Fox Advisors, as well as our great programs and community outreach endeavors.    

EEOC Issues New National Enforcement Plan, Signaling Shift in Enforcement Priorities

EEOC Issues New National Enforcement Plan, Signaling Shift in Enforcement Priorities

Kellen R. Scott, Shareholder

On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) formally rescinded its Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) for Fiscal Years 2024–2028 and replaced it with a new National Enforcement Plan (NEP) for Fiscal Years 2025–2029. The new plan represents a significant shift in the agency’s enforcement priorities and approach to workplace discrimination investigations and litigation.

While the prior SEP focused heavily on systemic discrimination, advancing pay equity, protecting vulnerable workers, addressing emerging workplace issues, and expanding access to the legal system, the new NEP places greater emphasis on allegations of intentional discrimination, referred to as "disparate treatment," and expressly deprioritizes the use of disparate impact theories "to the maximum degree possible." The EEOC further states it will not initiate or continue litigation advancing disparate impact claims, marking one of the most notable departures from prior enforcement policy.

The NEP also signals increased scrutiny of workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The EEOC identifies as enforcement priorities cases involving employment policies, programs, or practices that allegedly use race or sex as factors in employment decisions. According to the plan, this may include challenges to hiring quotas, diverse slate requirements, diversity statements, mentorship or fellowship opportunities limited to certain demographic groups, and compensation structures tied to diversity-related goals. The agency specifically notes its intention to pursue cases that clarify the application of recent Supreme Court decisions to DEI-related employment practices.

Additionally, the EEOC identifies several areas where it intends to shape the development of employment law through strategic litigation. These include issues involving religious accommodations under Groff v. DeJoy, the scope of protections recognized in Bostock v. Clayton County, the "some harm" standard established in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, and unresolved questions under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The agency also expressed an interest in pursuing cases involving employees' rights related to single-sex workplace facilities and the expression of views regarding the binary nature of sex.

Despite these shifts, several longstanding enforcement priorities remain intact. The EEOC continues to emphasize protecting vulnerable workers, including teenagers, individuals with limited education or literacy, survivors of sexual assault, individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, and workers in low wage occupations. The agency also reaffirmed its commitment to pursuing retaliation claims, protecting the integrity of the EEOC's investigatory processes, collaborating with state and local enforcement agencies, and encouraging early dispute resolution through mediation, conciliation, and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

For employers, the NEP underscores the importance of reviewing existing employment practices, policies, and training programs to ensure compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws. Organizations with DEI initiatives should carefully assess whether any programs could be interpreted as granting preferences, limiting opportunities, or otherwise making employment decisions based on protected characteristics. Employers also should review accommodation processes, documentation practices, anti-retaliation policies, and recordkeeping procedures in light of the EEOC's stated enforcement priorities.

For employees, the NEP suggests the EEOC will continue to prioritize claims involving intentional discrimination, retaliation, religious accommodation, and workplace harassment. However, individuals seeking to challenge facially neutral employment policies as having a disproportionate impact on protected groups may encounter a different enforcement landscape, as the agency has indicated that it will devote fewer resources to pursuing disparate impact theories.

Although the NEP does not create new legal obligations or rights, it provides valuable insight into how the EEOC intends to allocate its limited resources and exercise its enforcement discretion over the coming years. Employers and employees alike should closely monitor developments arising from the NEP, as the agency's strategic priorities are likely to influence investigations, litigation trends, and the broader evolution of federal employment discrimination law.