When Kenni Miller started as a shift manager in his local Sheetz convenience store in Altoona, Pa., he felt something that he rarely had as a Black man in the workplace.<\/p>\n
He felt trusted. He felt appreciated. <\/p>\n
When he was fired a few weeks later, in the summer of 2020 after a background check, Mr. Miller, then 27, was devastated. A nonviolent, felony drug conviction from his teenage years had never caused him to be denied a job before. And he already proved he could do the work.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was well spoken,\u201d Mr. Miller told The New York Times in an interview. \u201cThey had me running the cash register, talking to people, all the customers. I\u2019m doing these things, learning the whole store, so I\u2019m equipped for the job. That\u2019s not the issue here, right?\u201d<\/p>\n
In 2024, Mr. Miller was part of a class-action lawsuit<\/a> against Sheetz filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the company\u2019s criminal background checks disproportionately screened out applicants of color.<\/p>\n But soon after President Trump took office, the E.E.O.C. abruptly dropped the case.<\/p>\n The agency cited an executive order by Mr. Trump<\/a> that directed federal agencies to \u201cdeprioritize\u201d cases like Mr. Miller\u2019s, in which companies are scrutinized not for intentional discrimination, but for having policies that have an unintentional, \u201cdisparate impact\u201d on minority applicants.<\/p>\n The result has been an abandonment of civil rights cases across the federal government, in departments including education, housing, trade, justice and the E.E.O.C. There is no public accounting of exactly how many cases have been closed, but legal advocates describe a generational void in civil rights enforcement.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is absolutely widespread, and it is absolutely devastating,\u201d said Dariely Rodriguez, chief counsel at the Lawyers\u2019 Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. \u201cWe know a lot of time with discrimination, there\u2019s rarely a smoking gun. A lot of people don\u2019t know that they\u2019re being subjected to discrimination. We need our federal agencies to look into that hidden discrimination.\u201d<\/p>\n For Mr. Trump, the directive against disparate impact litigation is part of a broader push<\/a> to eradicate \u201cdiversity, equity and inclusion\u201d \u2014 a catchall term increasingly used to describe policies that benefit anyone who is not white and male \u2014 from every part of American life.<\/p>\n He and other opponents of the cases argue that employers should not be penalized for the mere implication of discrimination, usually shown through statistics. Instead, they say, the focus should be directed at explicit and intentional discrimination.<\/p>\n Nick Ruffner, a spokesman for Sheetz, declined to comment on the E.E.O.C\u2019s decision to dismiss its lawsuit. But he said in a statement, \u201cSheetz does not tolerate discrimination of any kind,\u201d and the company wanted \u201cto reaffirm our commitment to fairness, inclusivity, and treating every team member and customer with respect.\u201d<\/p>\n The impact of the decision to abandon discrimination cases has been felt acutely by those who have turned to the E.E.O.C., the nation\u2019s top enforcer of workplace discrimination laws.<\/p>\n Under its new chair, Andrea Lucas<\/a>, the agency has aggressively prioritized Mr. Trump\u2019s goals, such as pursuing cases of white men who believe they have been discriminated against<\/a>.<\/p>\n The agency declined to comment on specific lawsuits. But in a statement, Ms. Lucas said \u201crooting out race and sex discrimination has always been central to the E.E.O.C.\u2019s mission.\u201d<\/p>\n The test of disparate impact liability was established in 1971 and has been the legal theory crucial to enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned racial discrimination by employers and other institutions.<\/p>\n One widely cited example of disparate impact has been the Jim Crow-era literacy tests that some states created as a condition to vote. The tests did not ask about race and so seemed neutral on their face. But they disproportionately prevented Black people from voting because they had long been forced out of schools.<\/p>\n Amalea Smirniotopoulos<\/a>, senior policy counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which successfully argued the first disparate impact case at the Supreme Court<\/a>, said the legal theory is a recognition of the remnants of state-sanctioned discrimination.<\/p>\n \u201cWe didn\u2019t just want to take down the \u2018Whites only\u2019 signs,\u201d Ms. Smirniotopoulos said. \u201cFundamentally, the civil rights movement was fighting for the ability for people to actually get living wage jobs, and housing, access to mortgages, and all of the things that actually make for an equal society.\u201d<\/p>\n The measure was codified by Congress in 1991, and upheld<\/a> by the Supreme Court as recently as 2015. Because disparate impact remains codified in law \u2014 which the president cannot erase unilaterally \u2014 Mr. Trump could only demand that agencies stop making the cases a priority.<\/p>\n The agencies have taken heed.<\/p>\n The Education Department, which has severely drawn back its civil rights investigations,<\/a> stopped pursuing disparate impact investigations in areas like school discipline<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Department of Housing withdrew guidance for how the agency would assess disparate impact in enforcing fair housing laws<\/a>, including redlining, and began dropping housing discrimination cases from its docket<\/a>. In one instance, a public housing authority found to have favored white applicants withdrew a settlement two days after its offer, citing Mr. Trump\u2019s order, according to an investigation by ProPublica<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Federal Trade Commission dismissed its claims of discrimination<\/a> it had brought against three Texas car dealerships for discriminating against Black and Latino consumers in charging more for add-ons.<\/p>\n The Department of Justice also dropped several high-profile cases predicated on disparate impact theory, including several lawsuits<\/a> against police and fire departments whose hiring policies and exams were found to be discriminatory. It also recently terminated the first-ever environmental justice<\/a> settlement in which Alabama officials were supposed to provide septic tanks<\/a> to Black residents. The Trump administration called the plan \u201cillegal D.E.I.\u201d and scrapped the deal. The agency also issued a rule that eliminated disparate impact from its enforcement<\/a> of Title VI.<\/p>\n And the Office of Management and Budget, which sets policy for the entire federal government, proposed a sweeping new regulation<\/a> that prohibits the use of federal funds to \u201cpromote or support theories of disparate-impact liability\u201d for all agencies.<\/p>\n The rule could ban federal funding for studies, litigation or other activities predicated on the idea that certain policies and practices could disproportionately harm certain groups \u2014 which could affect everything from the study of maternal mortality disparities at the Department of Health and Human Services to grant-funded organizations that tackle issues like housing.<\/p>\n Filling in the gaps are legal advocacy groups that are trying to keep cases going. Mr. Miller, with the help of a team of private attorneys, decided to become a named plaintiff in the Sheetz case, to take the place of the E.E.O.C. in the lawsuit.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat the administration or folks who support dropping disparate impact say is that they want people to be judged by their merits,\u201d said Pooja Shethji, a lawyer at Outten & Golden LLP, one of the lawyers representing Mr. Miller, \u201cand that\u2019s exactly what Mr. Miller wants \u2014 to be judged by the work, and his qualifications.\u201d<\/p>\n The request is still pending before a judge, and a ruling could come down any day.<\/p>\n Mr. Miller said he has found a new job, but the shame he felt walking down the road with his nametag after he\u2019d been abruptly let go still weighs on him. He said he felt compelled to stand up for Black men in America, who are often overlooked and over-incarcerated.<\/p>\n The E.E.O.C. found that Sheetz background check resulted<\/a> in 14.5 percent of Black job applicants being denied employment, while 13 percent of Native American applicants and 13.5 percent of multiracial candidates were screened out. The denial rate for white applicants was less than 8 percent. <\/p>\n \u201cThe average me doesn\u2019t come back from a situation like that,\u201d Mr. Miller said. \u201cI want to be the one who speaks up for this situation \u2014 which is life after having a job \u2014 and make sure jobs are held accountable.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2018Keep Up With the Boys\u2019<\/p>\n While Mr. Trump\u2019s order specifically took aim at race-based cases, it has broad consequences for other groups, including women, L.G.B.T.Q. people and people with disabilities.<\/p>\n When Leah Cross started training for a new job as an Amazon delivery driver, her female colleagues gave her a piece of advice that they said would \u201chelp her keep up with the boys.\u201d<\/p>\n She should purchase a \u201cShewee,\u201d they told her, the camping device used by women to urinate in the woods, or in otherwise remote areas. It would help her meet her delivery quotas and avoid being punished for straying from her route for a bathroom break \u2014 a predicament her male colleagues rarely found themselves in because they could easily urinate in bottles.<\/p>\n Ms. Cross felt up to the challenge. When she landed a job at the world\u2019s biggest online retail giant in August 2022, she felt like she had made it.<\/p>\n \u201cGetting a leg into that industry, I saw it as, like, working for Google,\u201d Ms. Cross recalled in an interview. \u201cI know it\u2019s not amazing, but I was just kind of like, \u2018Hey, I\u2019m part of something.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n But by the end of her four-month stint she felt she was part of a humiliating trend. Like her female colleagues, she was relieving herself in her delivery van several times a day. She had received phone calls from her manager when he was notified that she deviated from her route, often to find a bathroom to use sanitary products. In November 2022, she was fired for \u201cfailure to perform.\u201d<\/p>\n Ms. Cross was among three former Amazon workers who filed a grievance against Amazon<\/a> in 2023, alleging the company violated wage laws by introducing strict delivery quotas and monitoring drivers with GPS tracking and surveillance cameras that alerted supervisors if a driver went off route for a bathroom break.<\/p>\n Ms. Cross went further, also filing a discrimination charge with the E.E.O.C. that year, alleging that women suffered disproportionately from Amazon\u2019s strict policies because women could not urinate in bottles as easily as men and are more likely to need access to bathrooms to take care of menstruation needs.<\/p>\n A spokeswoman for Amazon declined to comment on Ms. Cross\u2019s complaint. The company has maintained that workers are allowed to take bathroom breaks, and that its delivery app shows where public bathrooms are.<\/p>\n \u201cYou don\u2019t see a lot of females to look up to when you\u2019re starting this position, because it takes a lot for females to meet these working conditions,\u201d Ms. Cross said.<\/p>\n In December 2024, the E.E.O.C. contacted Ms. Cross, stating that it was \u201cvery interested in moving forward with Ms. Cross\u2019s case.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI kind of accepted at that time that there wasn\u2019t a whole lot that I could do based on my standing, and financial background,\u201d Ms. Cross said. \u201cBut I saw hope.\u201d<\/p>\n But last fall, the agency notified Ms. Cross that it would no longer be investigating her case, citing Mr. Trump\u2019s directive. Ms. Cross, with the backing of three legal advocacy groups, unsuccessfully sued the E.E.O.C. last year<\/a> over its withdrawal from disparate impact cases. A judge dismissed her case<\/a>.<\/p>\n The case illuminated the difficult path ahead for many Americans, particularly for those who don\u2019t have the resources to take on big companies and for whom the federal government has been their only recourse.<\/p>\n And civil rights attorneys say that because of the administration\u2019s attacks on D.E.I., it is getting harder to find people willing to be the face and name of private lawsuits.<\/p>\n