1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |EEOC v. Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc.: Another Step Focused on the EEOC’s Goal of Eradicating Unlawful DEI-Related Practices

EEOC v. Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc.: Another Step Focused on the EEOC’s Goal of Eradicating Unlawful DEI-Related Practices

Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.27.26

On February 17, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleging that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) by conducting an event limited to female employees. The EEOC’s lawsuit is one of several recent actions from the EEOC in furtherance of its efforts to end what it refers to as “unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.” See EEOC and Justice Department Warn Against Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc.’s “Women Only” Employee Event

The EEOC’s suit alleges that, in September 2024, the company held an employer-sponsored two-day event at the Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut. The event featured a social reception, team-building exercises, and the opportunity to hear from several speakers, including the president of the Coca-Cola North American Operating Unit. The complaint further alleges that the company privately invited female employees to the two-day event and excluded male employees. Employees who were invited to the event were excused from their normal work duties, paid normal salary or wages without being required to use vacation or other paid time off, and offered other benefits during the event, such as paid hotel charges, food, and beverages. The suit alleges that this offering violated Title VII because male employees were not afforded the opportunity to receive any of the benefits associated with the event. 

Relief Sought

The EEOC seeks injunctive and compensatory relief. Specifically, the EEOC requests that the court grant a permanent injunction barring the company from any future sex-based discrimination. The EEOC also demands that the company modify its policies, practices, and programs to ensure that male employees have equal access to employer-sponsored events. Additionally, the EEOC requests that Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc., compensate male employees for any past and future monetary damages suffered as a result of their exclusion from the employer-sponsored event at issue. The complaint does not specify how such damages would be determined. 

The EEOC’s Mission to End Unlawful DEI-Related Activities

The EEOC’s lawsuit is one of several recent actions it has taken in line with its goal to eradicate what it views to be unlawful DEI-related discrimination. In the past three months, the EEOC has filed at least two subpoena enforcement actions requesting broad-ranging information related to Nike and Northwestern Mutual’s internal DEI practices.

The Coca-Cola litigation and the EEOC’s other recent actions underscore the legal risks associated with any employer activities that are based exclusively on race, gender, or other protected characteristics. Employers should work closely with legal counsel to review internal DEI practices to ensure compliance with applicable legal requirements while managing potential risks. The Crowell & Moring Labor and Employment Group is available to advise employers on these issues.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 02.27.26

Major Questions, Major Drama

The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, opinion in Learning Resources. v. Trump (decided with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections), holding that the President lacks authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is notable for many reasons — including its practical impact on the many U.S. companies who paid steep tariffs on global imports and may now be able to recover by filing suit before the Court of International Trade (CIT). That possibility and the key reasons for the High Court’s decision are discussed in our recent alert on this momentous decision....