Filed Date: Oct. 20, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case challenging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s sudden closing of Title VII and ADEA investigations on disparate impact. On September 15, 2025, the EEOC issued a memorandum (“the Disparate Impact Rule”), directing EEOC field offices to administratively close, by September 30, 2025, all investigations of Title VII and ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) charges alleging disparate-impact discrimination
On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff — an Amazon delivery driver who brought an EEOC case — represented by Public Citizen Litigation Group, Public Justice, Towards Justice, and FarmStand, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit was filed against the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Chair of the EEOC, Andrea Lucas, in her official capacity. The Plaintiff argued that the Disparate Impact Rule denied workers like her their statutory right to an EEOC investigation and conciliation process. The Plaintiff had filed a class-based charge of discrimination against her former employer, Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), alleging that Amazon’s policy of denying delivery drivers bathroom breaks had a disparate impact based on sex. She was fired for failing to meet her delivery quotas, and asserted that she could not take any bathroom break if she were to meet those quotas. The EEOC began to investigate her charge, but because of the Disparate Impact Rule, it abruptly ended the investigation and administratively closed her charge on September 29, 2025. This investigation might have provided the Plaintiff the benefit of an EEOC-facilitated conciliation process rather than having to immediately file a suit in court.
Plaintiff argues that the Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in that it (1) is contradictory to the EEOC’s statutory mandates under Title VII and the ADEA, (1) abruptly ended the EEOC’s longstanding enforcement of laws prohibiting disparate-impact discrimination in a way that is arbitrary and capricious, (3) exceeded the statutory authority of the EEOC, and (4) was issued without following the required procedure. She requested both declaratory relief with a statement that the Disparate Impact Rule was unlawful, and injunctive relief asking that the court stay and vacate the Rule and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing the Rule. The case was assigned to Judge Trevor N. McFadden.
Along with her complaint, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction (“PI”) and stay of the Disparate Impact Rule. She further requested a delay on any filing deadlines for EEOC discrimination charge cases that were closed due to the Rule, a list from the EEOC to the court of all affected charges, and a requirement that the EEOC notify all individuals whose cases were closed about the lawsuit at hand.
On October 31, 2025, Defendants filed their opposition to the motion for PI and stay. They allege that the Plaintiff lacked standing because she did not have a cognizable injury, that she failed to state a cause of action under the APA, and that even if she did have a cause, her APA claim failed on the merits. Defendants further assert that Plaintiff will suffer no irreparable harm because closing the EEOC investigation did not bar her from bringing suit for her claim under Title VII. They also disagreed with the Plaintiffs' request that Defendants make public other people’s private claims, especially since she had not submitted for class certification.
Judge McFadden issued an opinion for the Defendants on November 25, 2025. 2025 WL 3280764. The opinion asserted that the Plaintiff did not successfully show that she suffered a judicially cognizable injury from the EEOC’s closure of their investigation on her case, and thereby lacked standing to bring the case. Judge McFadden asserted that the Plaintiff could still bring a Title VII claim directly against Amazon, her employer. The court’s order dismissed the case for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied the motion for preliminary injunction as moot.
Plaintiff Cross has until January 24, 2025, to appeal the decision.
Summary Authors
Ayah Elsheikh (11/26/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71699034/parties/cross-v-us-equal-employment-opportunity-commission/
Gilbride, Karla A. (District of Columbia)
Leighton, Shelby Hannah (District of Columbia)
Leys, Nathan (District of Columbia)
Georgiev-Remmel, Dimitar (District of Columbia)
Kambli, Abhishek (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71699034/cross-v-us-equal-employment-opportunity-commission/
Last updated Dec. 3, 2025, 12:26 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 20, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Leah Cross, an Amazon delivery driver who brought a Title VII and ADEA claim against her employer to the EEOC
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-03702
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
EEOC-centric: