A federal labor union and two female correctional officers have sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after an administrative judge issued an order that appeared to pause all federal-sector class claims — a move that lawyers say threatens timely enforcement of workplace civil-rights protections for federal employees. The dispute has prompted a rapid back-and-forth between the EEOC, the Justice Department and plaintiffs over whether the halt was an isolated mistake or part of a wider pattern of stalled cases.
The complaint was filed by the American Federation of Government Employees alongside two women who work at the Federal Correctional Complex in Pollock, Louisiana. They are named plaintiffs in a class complaint alleging that facility management failed to stop inmates from sexually harassing female staff.
Kankakee stray cats surge spurs city action: neighbors warn of health, safety risks
Arch Manning silences doubters at Ohio State with dominant showing
At the center of the litigation is an administrative-judge order dated Dec. 10, 2025 that indicated the sexual-harassment case had been put on hold and said the notice “applies to all class cases in the federal sector.” Plaintiffs moved quickly to challenge what they called an unlawful suspension of class proceedings.
In a court filing late Thursday, EEOC Chief Operating Officer Sharon Rose told the judge that the scheduling notice had been issued “in error” and characterized the incident as isolated. The filing says the contested matter was reassigned to another administrative judge, who then set new dates for moving the case forward.
The Justice Department, writing separately, echoed that position. A letter from DOJ attorney James Harlow to the plaintiffs — sent the following Monday — asked them to withdraw a request for emergency court relief and stated plainly that the government does not intend to suspend processing of federal-sector class complaints.
Plaintiffs’ counsel disagree. Joseph Sellers, co-chair of the civil-rights and employment practice at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, told the court he has documentation showing multiple federal class claims were put on hold for months. He said the timing of the EEOC’s corrections — only after the lawsuit was filed — undercuts the agency’s explanation that the pause was a one-off mistake.
- What plaintiffs say: At least five other federal-sector class complaints have experienced delays, including cases involving the FBI and the Department of Defense.
- What the government says: Two additional stalled matters received scheduling orders the Monday after the lawsuit, and DOJ asked plaintiffs to identify any other complaints that appear suspended so they can be reviewed.
- Immediate status: The original Pollock matter has been reassigned and new proceedings have been scheduled, according to the EEOC filing.
Sellers and his colleagues say they remain open to settling the dispute with the Justice Department without further litigation, but they are continuing to press the court for relief while they collect and present evidence that other class claims were paused.
Beyond this case, advocates and lawyers point to broader shifts at the EEOC under the Trump administration that have refocused the agency’s priorities. Recent policy actions have deprioritized certain diversity and inclusion challenges, scaled back or dropped some cases involving transgender employees, and reassessed long-standing investigative tools used in systemic discrimination matters. Those shifts have already prompted separate lawsuits targeting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, who defends her approach as neutral and consistent with the law.
In her court statement, Rose emphasized that neither she nor the commission issued any written or verbal directive directing administrative judges to halt class cases across the federal sector. The EEOC directed additional media inquiries to the Justice Department; DOJ did not immediately provide an on-the-record comment.
The case highlights a basic enforcement question with immediate real-world consequences: when administrative processes pause — whether by mistake or design — affected federal employees face additional delay in resolving claims of harassment or discrimination. For class plaintiffs, those delays can compound harms by stalling remedies that would apply to large groups of workers.
Legal and procedural next steps will hinge on the court’s response to the pending filings and whether plaintiffs produce further evidence of a coordinated pause. For federal employees and unions monitoring enforcement of workplace civil-rights protections, the outcome will signal how readily class claims can advance through the EEOC’s administrative system.
