US: EEOC Alleges Exclusion of Men from Employer-Sponsored Event Constitutes Sex Discrimination; Sues Coca-Cola Distributor

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has filed a lawsuit against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc. (“Coca-Cola Northeast”), alleging that the company discriminated against male employees on the basis of sex.

In its complaint, filed on February 17, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, the EEOC alleges that Coca-Cola Northeast violated federal anti-discrimination laws by sponsoring a two-day “trip and networking event” exclusively for female employees, from which male employees were excluded.

According to the EEOC, male employees were unlawfully disadvantaged because Coca-Cola Northeast provided female employees with various perks and non-monetary benefits that were not extended to male employees. These benefits allegedly included excusing female employees from regular work duties while continuing to pay their normal wages and salaries, as well as providing hotel accommodations, food, beverages, and other travel-related benefits. Male employees, by contrast, were not offered comparable opportunities or benefits.

In addition to seeking compensatory and punitive damages, the EEOC is requesting a court order requiring Coca-Cola Northeast to “institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide male employees with equal access to employer-sponsored events.”

The Broader Context

The lawsuit against Coca-Cola Northeast reflects a broader trend in EEOC enforcement focused on what the agency describes as “majority-group discrimination,” as well as increased scrutiny of employer diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives.

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not impose a heightened evidentiary or legal standard for discrimination claims brought by members of so-called “majority groups.” As a result, such claims are analyzed under the same framework as discrimination claims brought by historically underrepresented groups.

Following that decision, the EEOC has signaled an intention to intensify its focus on potential discrimination against majority-group employees. In mid-December 2025, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas posted a video on social media encouraging white male employees to file workplace discrimination claims. Around the same time, the EEOC issued guidance on “DEI-Related Discrimination,” stating in relevant part:

Under Title VII, DEI initiatives, policies, programs, or practices may be unlawful if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.

The Coca-Cola lawsuit is not an isolated matter. On February 4, 2026, the EEOC announced that it had opened an investigation into Nike, Inc. based on allegations of race discrimination against white employees. The agency stated that Nike was the subject of “systemic allegations of DEI-related intentional race discrimination” affecting white employees, applicants, and participants in training programs. The alleged conduct includes discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, demotion, termination decisions, internship programs, and mentoring, leadership development, and other career advancement initiatives.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The EEOC’s lawsuit against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast and its investigation into Nike suggest a likely increase in discrimination claims brought by majority-group employees. In light of this enforcement trend, employers should consider taking the following steps:

• Promptly consult with employment counsel and conduct a comprehensive audit of DEI programs and initiatives.

• Review and update anti-discrimination policies and training materials to explicitly address the risk of majority-group discrimination.

• Prepare for the potential consequences of discrimination claims arising from DEI initiatives, including the possibility of class or collective actions brought by majority-group employees.

• Recognize that non-monetary benefits provided through DEI programs—such as networking opportunities, paid time away from work, or access to professional development events—may constitute “adverse employment actions,” particularly in light of recent Supreme Court precedent expanding the scope of what qualifies as actionable harm under Title VII.

By White and Williams, US, a Transatlantic Law International Affiliated Firm. 

For further information or for any assistance please contact us@transatlanticlaw.com

Disclaimer: Transatlantic Law International Limited is a UK registered limited liability company providing international business and legal solutions through its own resources and the expertise of over 105 affiliated independent law firms in over 95 countries worldwide. This article is for background information only and provided in the context of the applicable law when published and does not constitute legal advice and cannot be relied on as such for any matter. Legal advice may be provided subject to the retention of Transatlantic Law International Limited’s services and its governing terms and conditions of service. Transatlantic Law International Limited, based at 84 Brook Street, London W1K 5EH, United Kingdom, is registered with Companies House, Reg Nr. 361484, with its registered address at 83 Cambridge Street, London SW1V 4PS, United Kingdom.