What Employers Need To Know About "Anti-American" Bias In The Workplace

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently signaled that it intends to undertake "robust enforcement" against instances of "anti-American" bias by employers in the United States. In this Legal Update, we review how laws prohibiting national origin discrimination apply to discrimination against Americans, review recent EEOC guidance on and enforcement actions relating to "anti-American" bias, and highlight actions US employers should take in light of the increased focus on "anti-American" bias in the workplace.

What is National Origin Discrimination?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on a number of protected characteristics, including national origin.The EEOC has recently emphasized that Title VII's protections"apply equally to all racial, ethnic, and national origin groups," including Americans. In addition to federal law, certain state and local laws also prohibit national origin discrimination.

Employment policies and practices may involve national origin discrimination if an employer's action is motivated—in whole or in part—by an applicant's or employee's national origin. National origin discrimination involves treating job applicants or employees favorably or unfavorably because they are from a particular country or region, because of their ethnicity, because of their accent, or because they are perceived to be of a certain ethnic background. Discrimination can occur even when the individual affected and the individual who inflicted the discrimination are of the same national origin.

National origin discrimination includes, according to the EEOC, "preferring foreign workers, including workers with a particular visa status, over American workers."

EEOC Guidance on National Origin Discrimination

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has repeatedly emphasized that one of her priorities is "protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination." In February 2025,EEOC Chair Lucas issued a press release vowing to protect American workers from anti-American bias, which she characterized as a "large-scale problem in multiple industries nationwide." The Chair signaled that the EEOC would increase enforcement of employment anti-discrimination laws "against employers that illegally prefer non-American workers, as well as against staffing agencies and other agents that unlawfully comply with client companies' illegal preferences against American workers."

On November 19, 2025, the EEOC issued a new one-page technical assistance document,Discrimination Against American Workers Is Against The Law. The EEOC's guidance includes several examples of employer actions that could be considered national origin discrimination:

• Discriminatory job advertisements, such as ads that state an employer prefers or requires applicants from a specific country or with a specific visa status (e.g., "H-1B preferred" or "H-1B only").
• Termination of American workers who are "on the bench" between job assignments at a higher rate than visa guest workers.
• Subjecting American workers to additional or more laborious application requirements than those for H-1B visa holders.
• Unwelcome remarks or behavior based on an applicant's or an employee's national origin.
• Retaliation because an applicant or employee has engaged in a protected activity, such as opposing national origin discrimination at work, participating in internal or EEOC investigations, or filing an EEOC charge.

The EEOC also emphasized that employers cannot rely on what is characterized as "common" business reasons to favor foreign workers over American workers, including:

• Customer or client preference;
• Lower-cost labor (whether due to payment "under the table," or exploiting rules around certain visa-holder wage requirements, etc.); or
• Biased perceptions that foreign workers are more productive or have a better work ethic than American workers.

In conjunction with issuing the new technical assistance document,the EEOC revised its online guidance page regarding national original discriminationto align with this focus. For example, the website added new references to "American workers" and deleted discussion of employer "English only" policies or rules as examples of national original discrimination. In addition, in a press release issued on November 24, 2025, theUS Department of Labor "applauded" the EEOC's issuance of new guidanceand explained that the EEOC's actions were part of a "whole-of-government effort" in furtherance of the DOL's recently announced H-1B enforcement initiative, Project Firewall. Project Firewall is an initiative that was first announced on September 19, 2025, that is aimed at investigating employers for abuse of the H-1B visa program with the goal of "ensur[ing] employers prioritize qualified Americans when hiring and includes enforcement actions to hold employers accountable if they abuse the H-1B visa program."

Recent Enforcement Actions

In the past year, the EEOC has undertaken enforcement actions consistent with the Trump Administration's stated focus on "anti-American bias" in the workplace.

• On December 17, 2025, theEEOC filed a lawsuit against United Pride Dairy LLC, a dairy farm located in Phillips, Wisconsin,for alleged national origin and sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. According to the EEOC's press release regarding the lawsuit, the company promised three Mexican nationals management positions at hire and submitted the same information to the US Embassy for their TN Visa applications. However, when the three Mexican nationals arrived on the farm, the company gave them laborer positions instead of the management positions and assigned the more arduous tasks and shifts to Mexican workers. When a Mexican worker complained, a manager at United Pride Dairy explained the assignments based on a negative stereotype of American workers, stating that "Americans are lazy."
• On December 16, 2025, theEEOC announced that a federal court ordered Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., a supermarket chain with locations in Central and Southern California, to comply with subpoenas issued in September 2024 related to charges of race and national origin discrimination. According to the EEOC, the company engaged in unlawful hiring practices by excluding non-Hispanic individuals from employment.
• On November 25, 2025, theEEOC announced a $150,000 settlement agreement with Seward and Son Planting Company, a farming company charged with discriminating against American workers.Seward and Son Planting Company allegedly hired immigrant agricultural workers from foreign countries to supplement its existing workforce, made up of African-American farm workers. The employer allegedly provided the immigrant foreign agricultural workers with better and less strenuous job assignments, more work hours, higher pay and higher bonuses, as compared to the American workers. In addition to the $150,000 settlement, the employer will be required to implement policy changes via a three-year consent decree.
• On February 18, 2025, theEEOC announced that LeoPalace Guam Corporation, which operates LeoPalace Resort, a hotel and resort in Guam, would pay over $1.4 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The suit alleged that LeoPalace Guam gave preferential treatment to Japanese employees, paying non-Japanese employees (including American nationals) less favorable wages and benefits, and providing them with worse terms and conditions of employment compared to employees from Japan who held equal or lesser positions. In addition to the financial penalty, LeoPalace Guam agreed to provide equitable relief, including (1) hiring anexternal equal employment opportunity monitorto oversee compliance, training, and review of policies and procedures; (2) overseeing thereinstatement of former employeeswho were interested in returning to work; (3)conductingperiodic auditsand reporting to the EEOC; and (4) a three-year consent decreeunder court jurisdiction.

Takeaways for Employers

Employers should expect increased EEOC enforcement concerning national origin discrimination, particularly in matters where an employer may be perceived to favor non-American workers. Employers should consider the following actions:

• Reviewing and updating anti-discrimination policies to specifically address national origin discrimination, including making clear that American workers should be treated equally to foreign workers.
• Training HR, legal, and business personnel on the EEOC's definition of national origin discrimination and the EEOC's recent guidance on national origin discrimination.
• Ensuring compliance with US immigration laws, including visa program requirements, particularly when hiring foreign national workers.
• Reviewing any programs pursuant to which foreign workers are transferred or rotated to the United States as part of management training or career advancement efforts.
• Assessing the risks associated with hiring foreign national employees for roles in the United States.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.

© Copyright 2026. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.