The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued new guidance known as the EEOC presumption of innocence policy, which may significantly alter how federal agencies handle discrimination complaints. Acting Chair Andrea R. Lucas introduced a directive titled, Restoring and Protecting the Presumption of Innocence in the EEO Complaint Process, instructing agencies to treat employees accused of discrimination as “presumed innocent” throughout the complaint process.
The EEOC frames this guidance as a call for neutrality, but many federal employment attorneys, such as Debra D’Agostino, a Founding Partner of Federal Practice Group, see it as a policy shift that could discourage victims of discrimination from coming forward.
A Controversial New Directive from the EEOC
Chair Lucas’s directive emphasizes that the filing of a complaint does not equate to “guilt,” and that unless the complainant meets their burden of proof, the accused employee “must be treated as innocent.”
In theory, this policy aims to ensure fairness throughout the federal EEO process. In practice, the EEOC presumption of innocence policy may weaken protections for those reporting harassment or discrimination.
What Prompted the EEOC’s Policy Change?
In the memo, Chair Lucas referenced practices within the Department of Defense (DoD), where promotions were suspended for employees with pending EEO complaints. While this approach mirrored policies used in uniformed service contexts, its use in civilian settings raised concerns about fairness and due process.
Chair Lucas stated that filing a complaint does not equate to wrongdoing. She urged agencies to ensure that accused employees are not treated as guilty before any findings are made and called on all federal agencies to review their internal policies for consistency with this principle.
Debra D’Agostino’s Response to the EEOC Guidance
Federal employment attorney Debra D’Agostino expressed serious concern about the impact of this new policy on employees who file discrimination complaints.
“This policy could lead to misconduct charges against employees for filing complaints in circumstances where the complainant does not prevail after litigation,” she stated.
She also criticized the language used by Chair Lucas in the directive:
“Chair Lucas’ use of the terms guilty and innocent wrongly equates an EEO complaint to a criminal action and may have the effect of deterring employees from reporting discrimination.”
While the EEOC describes the directive as promoting neutrality, D’Agostino warns that its framing—and especially its language—could undermine the purpose of the EEO process and discourage legitimate complaints from being filed. It’s important to recognize that EEO complaints are civil, administrative matters—not criminal cases—and are governed by different legal standards.
Why the Language Matters in Federal EEO Cases
The EEOC’s shift in tone has practical consequences. By framing the accused as “innocent,” the agency may unintentionally discourage complainants from speaking up, especially in workplaces where retaliation is already a concern.
While the EEOC claims this policy promotes neutrality, the language of criminal law distorts the intent and purpose of the EEO process. The EEOC presumption of innocence policy risks reinforcing power imbalances instead of addressing the underlying conduct that triggered the complaint.
What the EEOC Presumption of Innocence Policy Means for Federal Employees
Despite this shift in tone, federal employees still have the right to file EEO complaints and are protected by law from retaliation. The burden of proof remains on the complainant, but that doesn’t mean complaints are baseless.
This policy does not change your legal rights, but it may change how agencies respond internally to complaints, especially when it comes to discipline, promotions, or internal investigations involving the accused.
Federal employees concerned about the impact of the EEOC presumption of innocence policy on their rights or the complaint process should speak with an experienced attorney early on.
When Language Discourages Accountability
Framing EEO complaints through the lens of criminal law creates confusion and may discourage federal employees from reporting legitimate discrimination. This guidance shifts the focus away from the core mission of the EEO process: to uncover and address unlawful conduct in the workplace. At Federal Practice Group, we remain committed to protecting employees who come forward and ensuring their voices are heard. If you believe this policy is being used to discredit or silence your complaint, speak with an attorney who can help you navigate your rights.