In an unprecedented move, President Trump fired EEOC Commissioners Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels, both Democratic appointees. This move mirrors his dismissals at other independent agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)—setting the stage for a constitutional showdown over presidential authority.
But what does this mean for employers, employees, and the future of workplace civil rights enforcement? Let’s break it down.
1️⃣ What Just Happened at the EEOC❓
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), is an independent agency with a five-member bipartisan Commission serving staggered fixed five-year terms. Historically, EEOC Commissioners have not been subject to at-will removal by the President. However, unlike with the NLRB, Title VII does not have a “for cause” removal provision.
By firing Burrows and Samuels, the EEOC is now without a quorum—with only Acting Chair Andrea Lucas (R) and Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal (D) remaining. Without at least three members, the EEOC cannot approve new lawsuits, issue new guidance, or engage in rulemaking.
2️⃣ The Implications
✅ Ongoing EEOC investigations and routine litigation** will likely continue, as career staff remain in place.
🚫 New high-impact lawsuits, such as systemic discrimination cases, may be stalled without Commission approval.
🚫 Regulatory changes and new enforcement guidance are effectively frozen until a quorum is restored.
3️⃣ The Bigger Picture: Trump’s Power Play Over Independent Agencies
This move isn’t just about the EEOC. President Trump also fired:
🔹 NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox and NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, leaving the NLRB with only two members** (one Republican, one Democrat) and unable to function.
🔹 Three Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), raising concerns about checks on government surveillance powers.
Unlike with the EEOC and Title VII, The National Labor Relations Act explicitly protects NLRB members from removal except for cause—but Trump is testing whether such protections hold up in court. This is likely due to a Supreme Court ruling from 2020 (see below).
4️⃣ The Constitutional Stakes: Will the Supreme Court Overturn Precedent❓
This mass firing strategy is a direct challenge to the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld *Congress’s ability to create independent agencies shielded from at-will presidential removal.
Recent rulings, however, suggest the Court may be ready to weaken or overturn Humphrey’s:
📌 In Seila Law v. CFPB* (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot insulate a single-agency director from at-will removal.
📌 Justice Thomas (joined by Gorsuch) explicitly called for Humphrey’s to be overturned, arguing that the President should have direct control over all executive officials.
With a conservative Supreme Court majority that has ruled in favor of an expansive “unitary executive theory”, this case could lead to a landmark decision on the limits of presidential power over independent agencies.
5️⃣ What Employers Need to Know
🔹 Routine EEOC litigation and investigations will continue—for now.
🔹 Significant regulatory changes will likely stall until Trump nominates new Commissioners (or chooses to leave the EEOC without a quorum).
🔹 Expect major litigation over the legality of these firings, with uncertainty until courts rule on the issue.
👉 What are your thoughts on these unprecedented firings? Could this reshape the balance of power between the President and independent agencies? 👇