Which Groups Experience Workplace Discrimination Most Often in the U.S.?

No single group can be identified as the group that experiences workplace discrimination “most often” in every industry or workplace. The best national enforcement data measures allegations reported to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, not every discriminatory event that occurs.

In fiscal year 2025, the EEOC received 88,201 new discrimination charges. Retaliation appeared most frequently, followed by disability, race, and sex among the leading bases. However, retaliation is not a demographic identity. It describes alleged punishment after a worker asserted or supported protected rights.

Among protected characteristics, workers with disabilities, workers reporting racial discrimination, and workers reporting sex discrimination appeared in especially large numbers of federal charges. Older workers also filed thousands of age-discrimination allegations. Yet charge totals alone cannot tell us which population faces the greatest real-world risk.

What the Latest EEOC Data Shows

The EEOC’s fiscal year 2025 charge table provides the newest complete nationwide breakdown available when this article was updated. One charge may allege more than one basis. For example, an employee may allege disability discrimination and retaliation in the same filing. As a result, the percentages overlap and should not be added together.

These figures are charge receipts, not court findings. A charge begins an administrative process. It does not prove that discrimination occurred, and it does not mean the EEOC will file a lawsuit. At the same time, an agency dismissal does not necessarily establish that the employer acted lawfully.

The total volume is also notable. The EEOC reported 88,201 new charges in fiscal year 2025, close to the 88,531 received in fiscal year 2024 and substantially above the 73,485 received in fiscal year 2022. That trend shows sustained demand for federal enforcement, not a precise count of every discriminatory workplace event.

Why These Statistics Cannot Identify One “Most Discriminated” Group

Charge data is useful, but it has limits. It counts people who reached an agency process. Many workers never report what happened. Others use only an internal complaint, a state agency, arbitration, a union grievance, or private litigation. Some events may fall outside federal jurisdiction even when state law provides protection.

Several factors shape the number of charges associated with a group:

• The size of the population in the workforce.
• Awareness of workplace rights and filing procedures.
• Access to counsel, unions, advocacy organizations, or agency resources.
• Fear of retaliation, job loss, immigration consequences, or reputational harm.
• Whether federal law covers the employer, worker, and alleged conduct.
• Differences in reporting practices across industries and communities.

Therefore, a larger number of charges may reflect more incidents, greater awareness, better access to reporting, or several of those forces at once. A smaller number may reflect underreporting rather than safety.

The data is best used to identify recurring legal issues—not to rank human suffering.

Workers Who Report Misconduct or Discrimination

Retaliation remains the most frequently alleged basis in the federal charge system. It can affect a worker of any race, sex, age, religion, national origin, or disability status. The common thread is protected activity.

Protected activity may include reporting suspected discrimination, participating in an investigation, serving as a witness, requesting a disability or religious accommodation, or opposing conduct the worker reasonably believes violates an anti-discrimination law.

Retaliation can be obvious, such as a termination immediately after a complaint. More often, the pattern develops through sudden discipline, reduced hours, exclusion, changed assignments, poor evaluations, or increased scrutiny. Timing matters, but timing alone may not prove motive. The decision-maker’s knowledge, the employer’s explanation, and any departure from prior practice are also important.

Employees should document what they reported, when they reported it, who knew, and what changed afterward. If the facts may require a federal filing, this guide explains how to file an EEOC complaint in California, including the distinction between an online inquiry and a signed charge.

Employees and Applicants With Disabilities

Disability was alleged in 36,256 EEOC charges in fiscal year 2025. That made it the most frequently alleged protected characteristic in the national charge data.

Disability cases can involve more than openly hostile treatment. Many arise when a medical condition affects attendance, scheduling, lifting, communication, concentration, mobility, or another aspect of work. The dispute may concern whether the employee was qualified, whether an accommodation was reasonable, and whether the employer engaged in the required process.

Common allegations include:

• Refusing to discuss a reasonable accommodation.
• Applying an inflexible attendance or leave rule without considering disability-related needs.
• Removing duties or terminating employment after learning of a diagnosis.
• Requiring an improper medical inquiry or examination.
• Treating an employee as incapable because of assumptions rather than actual limitations.

California law may provide broader protection than federal law in important respects. Employees facing a medical-condition dispute can review how the ADA and wrongful-termination protections may interact when an adverse action follows an accommodation request or disability disclosure.

Workers Experiencing Race or Color Discrimination

Race discrimination appeared in 29,338 EEOC charges in fiscal year 2025. Racial bias may affect hiring, promotion, compensation, job assignments, discipline, layoffs, termination, or the conditions under which a person must work.

Some cases involve direct slurs or statements. Others depend on patterns: workers of one race are disciplined more harshly, excluded from client-facing roles, denied advancement, or evaluated through stereotypes. A formally neutral policy may also deserve scrutiny when it operates unevenly and the surrounding facts support a legal claim.

Employees should record the exact conduct rather than relying on labels alone. A written complaint can identify the speaker, date, decision, witnesses, comparators, and why race or color appears connected to the treatment. This guide to filing a racial-discrimination complaint at work offers a practical framework.

Race and color are related but distinct protected bases. National-origin discrimination can also overlap with race, accent, ethnicity, ancestry, language, or assumptions about where a worker comes from. The correct theory depends on the facts, not merely the label used in an HR form.

Women, Pregnant Workers, and LGBTQ+ Employees

Sex discrimination appeared in 26,941 EEOC charges in fiscal year 2025. Federal sex-discrimination protection can reach pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex-based stereotyping, and sexual harassment, as well as unequal treatment because someone is male or female.

Women often face overlapping patterns involving pay, promotion, pregnancy, caregiving stereotypes, and harassment. The EEOC’s study of sexual-harassment charges filed from fiscal years 2018 through 2021 found that women filed 78.2% of those charges. That older dataset should be read in its stated time period rather than presented as a current universal rate.

Pregnant workers may also have rights under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and California law. A dispute can begin with a request for sitting, lifting restrictions, schedule changes, time for medical appointments, or temporary reassignment. An employer should not assume pregnancy makes someone less committed, unavailable for promotion, or unable to perform.

LGBTQ+ employees may experience misgendering, outing, harassment, exclusion, dress-code disparities, or adverse actions tied to sexual orientation or gender identity. The legal analysis often turns on severity, frequency, decision-maker involvement, reporting history, and the employer’s response.

Workers Age 40 and Older

Federal age-discrimination law protects applicants and employees who are at least 40 years old. The EEOC received 16,353 charges alleging age discrimination in fiscal year 2025.

Age bias is often expressed through coded business language. A company may repeatedly praise a “digital native,” seek “fresh energy,” discuss succession, or describe an experienced employee as too expensive or resistant to change. Those phrases are not automatically unlawful, but their meaning can shift when combined with replacement decisions, retirement pressure, changing evaluations, or a layoff that disproportionately removes older workers.

Women may encounter age and sex stereotypes at the same time. Research on hiring has found that older female applicants can face especially strong barriers in certain roles. The firm’s analysis of age discrimination affecting older women explains why an intersectional review can reveal what a one-category analysis misses.

Employees who notice a quieter pattern can also examine these subtle signs of age discrimination at work. A single comment may be ambiguous. A sequence of comments, lost responsibilities, shifting metrics, and younger replacements can be more revealing.

Workers Facing National-Origin or Religious Discrimination

National-origin discrimination can involve birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, accent, language, cultural characteristics, or an employer’s perception that someone belongs to a particular national group. It may also overlap with race or religious bias.

Religious discrimination can involve unequal treatment, harassment, scheduling, dress and grooming practices, or a failure to consider a reasonable religious accommodation. The analysis may include the employee’s sincere belief, notice to the employer, the requested accommodation, and the employer’s explanation of hardship.

These categories may produce fewer charges than race, sex, disability, or age. That does not mean the harm is less serious. Smaller population sizes, reporting barriers, uncertainty about legal coverage, and fear of drawing attention to immigration or cultural identity may affect the numbers.

Young Workers and Workers in Low-Wage Industries

Young workers do not form a federally protected age group under the ADEA, which protects people age 40 and older. Still, young employees can experience discrimination based on race, sex, disability, religion, national origin, pregnancy, or another covered characteristic.

Teenagers and workers in restaurants, retail, agriculture, hospitality, caregiving, warehouses, and temporary jobs may be especially vulnerable to harassment or retaliation because of power imbalances. A worker who depends on unpredictable scheduling or employer-provided housing may fear that reporting will immediately threaten income or stability.

Low reporting does not equal low harm. Workers may not know which agency to contact, may lack written records, or may believe the employer can replace them easily. Clear reporting channels and access to counsel matter.

Immigrant Workers and Language-Minority Employees

California’s employment protections can apply regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The CRD states that it does not ask complainants about citizenship or immigration status when handling employment-discrimination complaints.

Immigrant workers may nevertheless hesitate to report wage theft, harassment, or discrimination. Threats involving immigration status, documents, family members, or law-enforcement contact can deepen that fear. Language barriers may also make internal policies and agency procedures harder to navigate.

An accent or language rule is not automatically lawful or unlawful. The employer’s business justification, how the rule is applied, and whether it targets a national-origin group can matter. Employees should preserve the actual policy and examples of its enforcement.

Intersectional Discrimination: When Identities Overlap

Workplace decisions do not always fit one box. A Black woman may experience a form of stereotyping different from that directed at Black men or white women. An older employee with a disability may face assumptions tied to both age and medical condition. A pregnant immigrant worker may encounter sex and national-origin bias together.

Agency forms separate legal bases for administrative purposes, but the factual narrative should explain the complete pattern. Removing one part of the employee’s identity can distort what happened.

Overlapping allegations also explain why EEOC charge percentages exceed 100%. One filing can contain race, sex, disability, age, national origin, and retaliation allegations. The charge count is not a count of unique incidents within each category.

What Workplace Discrimination Looks Like

Discrimination can affect any meaningful employment decision. It may occur before employment begins, while the person is working, during a leave or accommodation process, or when employment ends.

Context controls the legal significance. A poor decision is not automatically discriminatory. The evidence must connect a protected characteristic or activity to the action. Readers can explore additional examples of discrimination in California workplaces to understand how that connection may appear.

What Should an Employee Do After Suspected Discrimination?

Start with a calm, accurate record. Write a chronology that separates dates, quotations, witnesses, and documents from assumptions. Save materials you lawfully possess, including reviews, pay statements, schedules, policies, complaints, and responses.

When appropriate, make a specific written internal complaint. Identify the protected issue rather than saying only that treatment was unfair. Keep a copy and note who received it.

Next, calculate the earliest possible agency deadline. Federal charges are generally due within 180 days and are often extended to 300 days in California when state or local law covers the same basis. CRD generally uses a three-year period for California employment-discrimination complaints. Different claims and public-employer procedures may involve other deadlines.

Finally, avoid secretly accessing files, deleting communications, threatening witnesses, or posting accusations online. Evidence gathered unlawfully can create new problems. A focused legal review can help identify which facts matter and which forum may apply.

Frequently Asked Questions About Workplace Discrimination Statistics

What is the most common allegation in EEOC charges?

Retaliation was the most frequently alleged basis in fiscal year 2025, appearing in 61.6% of charges. Because retaliation concerns protected activity rather than demographic identity, it does not identify one population as the most discriminated group.

Which protected characteristic appeared most often?

Disability was the most frequently alleged protected characteristic in the EEOC’s fiscal year 2025 charge data, followed by race and sex. These are reported allegations, not findings that the employer violated the law.

Do the percentages add up to 100%?

No. A single charge may allege several bases. For example, one employee may allege race discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation in the same filing.

Do EEOC statistics show every case of workplace discrimination?

No. They capture charges filed with the federal agency. They do not include every unreported event, state-only complaint, internal grievance, arbitration, settlement, or private lawsuit.

Can a white employee or a man experience unlawful discrimination?

Yes. Federal and California anti-discrimination laws generally protect individuals of every race and sex. The question is whether a covered employer took action because of a protected characteristic, not whether the employee belongs to a numerical minority.

Are workers under 40 protected from age discrimination?

The federal ADEA protects individuals age 40 and older. Other laws may still protect a younger worker from discrimination based on race, sex, disability, religion, national origin, or another covered characteristic.

Why is retaliation so common?

Retaliation can arise after many types of protected conduct, so it crosses demographic categories. It may also be easier to notice when the timing between a complaint and adverse action is close. Still, timing must be evaluated with the full record.

What evidence is most useful?

Contemporaneous documents are often important: messages, reviews, policies, schedules, complaints, discipline, and objective metrics. Comparator evidence and a clear chronology can also reveal whether the employer’s stated reason is consistent.

Discuss Suspected Workplace Discrimination With Azadian Law Group

National statistics provide context, but an individual claim succeeds or fails on its own evidence. The decision-maker, protected characteristic, adverse action, employer explanation, comparators, timing, and administrative filing history all matter.

Azadian Law Group’s Los Angeles employment lawyers represent employees facing discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and related workplace violations.

National statistics show broad patterns, but they cannot decide whether one employment action was discriminatory. The firm examines that distinction through practical conversations in its workplace discrimination and employee-rights podcast.

If you believe bias or retaliation affected your employment, you can request an evaluation of the workplace decision. Bring a short chronology and the most important records so the facts, deadlines, and available options can be reviewed efficiently.