The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ended its subpoena enforcement action against Nike. This decision came after Nike furnished the requested information regarding its diversity and inclusion policies. The motion to dismiss was filed in Missouri federal court, following a seven-month effort to ensure Nike complied fully with the subpoena.

According to the EEOC, between March and August, Nike submitted the needed documents and information, leaving nothing further for the court to address. An EEOC spokesperson expressed satisfaction with Nike’s compliance without needing a court order but did not elaborate further. Nike has chosen not to comment on the matter.

Nike has been under scrutiny as part of EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas’ initiative against corporate diversity measures. This campaign, linked to the previous Trump administration, argues these policies may discriminate against white men and others. The EEOC has also launched a case against The New York Times, claiming discrimination against a white editor in favor of a multiracial woman.

The investigation into Nike was initiated by a complaint Lucas filed in May 2024. It accused the company of discrimination against white workers. Lucas’ complaint referenced Nike’s public information on diversity efforts, increased minority representation in leadership, and its ambition to achieve a 35% representation of racial and ethnic minorities in its corporate workforce by 2025.

This subpoena enforcement provided insight into an EEOC investigation process, typically confidential unless leading to fines, settlements, or other public actions. The EEOC requested data spanning years about Nike’s employment decisions, including criteria for layoffs, usage of race and ethnicity data, and details of allegedly race-restricted programs.

Uncertainty remains over whether Nike has supplied all information demanded by the EEOC. Previously, in February, Nike termed the court action an unexpected escalation, claiming it had already shared thousands of pages of details with the EEOC and was continuing to do so. Nike argued that the demands were excessively broad and burdensome, likening them to a ‘fishing expedition’ hoping to find evidence of wrongdoing.