WASHINGTON, D.C. — Across all the concurrent sessions at the American Bar Association’s Labor & Employment Law conference, dozens of cases roll off the lawyer’s tongues. But notably, two 2026 ABA LEL sessions on Saturday mentioned a Coca-Cola bottler “reverse discrimination” case, brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as a critical inflection point for the future of employment law.
At the core of EEOC v. Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast is a two-day women’s leadership retreat. EEOC alleged that the bottler’s failure to invite men to the leadership event and the fact that the women who attended this employer-sponsored program were paid constituted a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
While moderating the panel “LGBTQ+ Protections Across Jurisdictions,” Nonnie Shivers, a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins, brought up EEOC’s lawsuit against the Coca-Cola bottler as a possible example of the Muldrow v. St. Louis standard of “some harm,” put forth by the Supreme Court. Shivers brought the audience full circle, showing that any viable case hinging on the “some harm” standard may have broader applications for claims related to LGBTQ+ workers, such as those related to gendered dress codes and bathroom usage consistent with one’s gender identity.
Shivers also noted a former EEOC employee has been able to use the Muldrow standard to show that “some harm” was caused by the federal agency when it chose to stop litigating claims of anti-LGBTQ+ harassment — thereby creating a hostile work environment. (A judge ruled last month that the worker may proceed with his discrimination lawsuit against EEOC.)
Meanwhile, over at the session on how employers are responding to shifting EEOC priorities, former EEOC commissioner Victoria Lipnic also brought up the bottler case.
“Chair [Andrea] Lucas — from the day she was first named acting chair, which is day one of President Trump's second term — put out a statement saying that her priorities will include rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination,” Lipnic, partner at Resolution Economics, pointed out. What may get missed, she said, is that while Lucas characterized the problem as “unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination,” Trump’s view is “that DEI, in and of itself, is unlawful.”
Trump’s stance, combined with EEOC’s letters to Fortune 500 companies and law firms regarding their DEI programs — which Lipnic acknowledged may have been addressed to some of the lawyers present — has created an intense legal environment for employers. Speakers pointed to the Coca-Cola bottler case as a flashpoint, emblematic of this dicey environment employers are facing.
“There’s a recent new pleading in that case, where the company is still trying to defend itself,” Lipnic said, adding, “So that is certainly one to keep your eye on.”
Camille Olson, partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, underscored the importance of EEOC’s lawsuit against the Coca-Cola bottler. “I work with employers every day that are saying, ‘Let me take a look at all my programs.’ And in light of Coca-Cola: ‘How do I ensure that I can continue these programs in a way that provides opportunities for all?’”
In Olson’s experience, “the answer has not been a retreat from those programs,” she said. Instead, the answer has been both to expand the programs, but also re-assess them for effectiveness; “I think the Coca-Cola [bottler] case is a very important case, in terms of employer practices, moving forward.”
