Nike’s Diversity Policies Draw Federal Scrutiny Over Alleged Bias Against White Workers

4 February 2026

Nike, the globally recognised sportswear maker, has found itself at the centre of a contentious federal investigation after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a subpoena seeking records and information tied to allegations that the company’s diversity, equity and inclusion objectives may have resulted in discriminatory practices against white employees, job applicants and participants in training programs.

According to filings with a federal court in Missouri this past week, the EEOC believes its probe could reveal a “pattern or practice of disparate treatment” rooted in employment decisions stretching back several years, prompting one of the more high-profile workplace disputes involving a major corporation’s DEI efforts.

The EEOC’s inquiry focuses on whether Nike’s efforts to boost representation of racial and ethnic minorities within its U.S. workforce inadvertently or otherwise produced adverse outcomes for white workers. The subpoena demands extensive documentation, including data on how workers were selected for layoffs, how the company tracks and uses race and ethnicity information, and whether programmes related to mentoring, internships or leadership development were structured in ways that excluded employees based on race. Federal officials say that despite repeated requests dating back to at least 2024, Nike has not fully complied with information requests, leading the agency to ask the court to enforce its subpoena and compel production of the relevant materials.

In statements reported by press outlets, Nike has characterised the enforcement action as an unexpected escalation in what it believes should be a cooperative process. The company says it has provided detailed written responses and produced thousands of pages of information to the EEOC and is continuing to engage with the agency in good faith while responding to the subpoena. Nike’s internal view, shared through spokespersons, is that the company is committed to lawful, equitable employment practices and that it will continue to respond to the EEOC’s requests while defending itself against any mischaracterisation of its policies.

The investigation comes as the EEOC under its current leadership has signalled an increased focus on workplace diversity initiatives, with officials saying they aim to enforce federal civil rights laws evenhandedly, regardless of the group purportedly affected. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, who was serving as a commissioner when the initial charge was filed, has pushed the agency to take a more assertive stance in reviewing how companies implement DEI programmes, contending that some efforts, even while well-intentioned, may conflict with statutory anti-discrimination protections codified in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on race, colour, religion, sex or national origin.

Legal experts watching the case say the Nike investigation exemplifies the tensions in corporate America as employers attempt to balance diversity goals with compliance obligations. Many large firms, including Nike, expanded and formalised their DEI strategies in recent years, particularly after social movements in the early 2020s that underscored racial and gender inequities across industries. Such initiatives often include ambitious representation targets and structured programmes intended to support historically underrepresented groups, but critics argue that the mechanisms for achieving those aims, if not carefully designed, can stray into unlawful territory.

For Nike, the stakes extend beyond legal compliance and potential penalties. An adverse finding by the EEOC could reverberate through its brand reputation, employee morale and broader corporate strategy. The company has weathered previous legal challenges related to workplace practices in the past, but scrutiny on DEI-related policies under the current probe is particularly acute because it aligns with broader national debates over diversity programmes, workplace fairness and how best to cultivate inclusive yet legally compliant cultures in large organisations.

As the case moves forward, observers in both the legal and corporate communities will be watching closely to see how the courts interpret the EEOC’s authority to enforce subpoenas in discrimination probes tied to DEI policies, and how Nike navigates a complex landscape where legal risk, public perception and internal policy goals intersect in an increasingly charged environment.