Rights on Paper: Who Will Enforce U.S. Workers' Rights?

Ahead of the U.S. midterm elections, New York civil rights lawyer and former United Nations Human Rights Officer Wendy Dolce examines how the Trump administration's retreat from workplace civil rights enforcement is shifting the burden onto states, courts, and workers themselves, and why the weakened access to redress matters far beyond the United States.

As Dolce writes, “The retreat at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission mirrors the administration's conduct abroad, including withdrawing from multilateral commitments, dismissing international law, and treating rights as favors to be distributed rather than obligations to be honored.”

This piece is a powerful reminder of what is at stake in the midterms for workers, employers and, anyone doing business with the U.S.

As a former United Nations Human Rights Officer in South Sudan, I witnessed firsthand that rights exist on paper long before they exist in practice. The distance between the two is measured by who is willing and able to enforce them.

I carry that lesson into my work today as a civil rights and employment lawyer in New York, where I represent workers who have been discriminated against, harassed, or punished for speaking up. From that vantage point, I have observed the federal government’s retreat from evenhanded enforcement of civil rights protections under the Trump administration. It increasingly prioritizes certain claims over others.

As a result, the burden is shifting to states, localities, and workers themselves, many of whom will never see the inside of a courtroom. With the U.S. midterm elections quickly approaching, this shift deserves attention well beyond U.S. borders.

The erosion of anti-discrimination protections for minorities

Over the past eighteen months, the Trump administration has reshaped federal workplace civil rights enforcement, by targeting “disparate impact” liability, which allows workers to challenge employment practices that appear neutral but disproportionately disadvantage certain groups. This includes discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Under the legal theory of disparate impact, workers need not prove that the employer intended to discriminate; if a practice disproportionately excludes a protected group, the key legal question becomes whether it is related to the job and consistent with business necessity.

An April 2025 executive order directed agencies to eliminate disparate impact liability "to the maximum degree possible." In June 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that enforces federal workplace anti-discrimination laws, adopted a new National Enforcement Plan stating it would no longer pursue such cases. Days later, the Justice Department issued an opinion calling the EEOC's disparate impact guidelines unconstitutional.

On October 6, the EEOC also sent the White House a final rule to rescind its 2012 guidance on arrest and conviction records. The guidance explains that arrest alone does not prove wrongdoing. For convictions, it recommends considering the offense’s seriousness, time elapsed and relevance to the job. Individual assessment may also be appropriate. These steps help prevent blanket exclusions that unlawfully disadvantage people because of their race or national origin. The withdrawal process deserves scrutiny, including any opportunity for public comment.

The agency has also narrowed whose rights it is willing to defend. In January, the EEOC withdrew its entire workplace harassment guidance following objections to its protections for transgender workers. It had already dropped several lawsuits brought on their behalf.

Meanwhile, the agency's chair posted a video inviting white men to file discrimination charges, and the EEOC now promotes its role in combating discrimination against Christians as a high priority. Every worker deserves protection from discrimination, including white men and Christians, but an agency that recruits complainants from some groups while abandoning others risks making protection appear selective.

I have observed the effect in my own practice. In some matters, charges that once triggered a request for the employer's position statement and at least some investigation increasingly come back with a notice of right to sue in federal court and nothing more. Although the worker is free to go to court, the agency has not undertaken the fact-finding that could help workers, especially those without lawyers, build their cases.

The information needed to detect patterns of discrimination is also at risk. In July, the EEOC proposed rescinding the requirement for the EEO-1 report, the annual filing that has required larger private employers to report workforce demographics by job category since 1966.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act still prohibits workplace discrimination and recognizes disparate impact liability. None of the EEOC’s actions repeals the law. What has changed is who will carry the burden of enforcing it.

States and private lawsuits face a growing enforcement burden

As federal enforcement diminishes, some states are filling the gap. In December 2025, New York amended its Human Rights Law to codify disparate impact liability, covering practices that "actually or predictably" produce discriminatory outcomes. States such as Colorado and Illinois have preserved their own workforce demographic reporting while the federal requirement faces possible elimination.

The result is a patchwork. A worker in New York may have strong protections. A worker doing the same job for the same company in another state may have far fewer, and no federal agency inclined to help.

In practice, much of the enforcement now depends on individual workers and their attorneys. That system has a serious weakness because many workers must pursue their claims in arbitration rather than court. Research from the Economic Policy Institute estimated that more than 60 million U.S. workers are bound by mandatory arbitration. Mandatory arbitration agreements require covered disputes to go before a private arbitrator rather than a judge or jury in court. This can keep allegations of workplace discrimination out of public view. A 2022 federal law exempted sexual harassment and assault claims from forced arbitration, but many other employment discrimination claims may still be subject to enforceable arbitration agreements.

When a new client comes to me, one of my first questions is not "What happened?" but "What did you sign?" The answer often determines whether the public will ever learn what happened inside that workplace.

Remedy is the real test

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights rest on three pillars: the state's duty to protect human rights, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and access to effective remedy. In my UN work, the third pillar was always the test of the other two. A company's human rights policy means little if the people it harms have no realistic way to be heard.

That is what concerns me about recent developments. When a federal agency closes charges without investigating, signals whose complaints it prefers, and leaves many workers navigating arbitration agreements that can limit access to court, the third pillar is quietly eroded. The rights remain on paper while the remedy disappears.

This is not only a U.S. story. The retreat at the EEOC mirrors the administration's conduct abroad, including withdrawing from multilateral commitments, dismissing international law, and treating rights as favors to be distributed rather than obligations to be honored. For decades, U.S. civil rights law was one of the country's most influential exports, invoked by advocates and lawmakers around the world as they built their own protections. If the United States abandons that model at home, governments and employers elsewhere may take that retreat as a signal.

New York, the midterms, and what comes next

New York City offers a glimpse of what local leadership can do. In September, Mayor Zohran Mamdani created a Mayor's Office of Worker Power. Its mandate includes climate risks to worker safety, a reminder that climate change and workers' rights are not separate problems for outdoor workers and those performing physically demanding labor.

Even here, protection depends on funding. Without adequate resources, even ambitious local offices may struggle to investigate complaints and secure remedies.

The November 3 midterm elections will not settle these questions, but they will shape them. Congress appropriates agency funding, while the Senate confirms presidential nominees to federal posts. Just as important, many states will elect governors, legislators, and attorneys general, the officials now doing much of the enforcement work that the federal government has set aside.

Follow the remedy

In South Sudan, I saw what happens when institutions meant to protect people are absent or unwilling. The rights did not disappear. They simply stopped working for the people who needed them.

The United States is not South Sudan, and U.S. workers still have powerful tools. But the lesson travels. The question is no longer only what the law promises but whether the people it is meant to protect can still reach someone who will listen, investigate, and enforce.

About the author

Wendy Dolce is the founding attorney of Dolce Law PLLC in New York, where she represents workers in employment discrimination and civil rights matters in federal and state courts. She previously served as a UN Human Rights Officer in the United Nations Mission in South Sudan. A Cornell Law School graduate licensed to practice law in New York and Florida, she sits on the Future Horizons Institute Advisory Board.