EEOC Merit Resolutions, Fiscal Year 2025

Charges the EEOC resolved with an outcome favorable to the charging party — settlements, successful conciliations, and withdrawals with benefits.

The merit resolution rate — the share of charges EEOC closes with an outcome favorable to the charging party — is the single number most likely to be misread across this entire dataset, because it is easily confused with EEOC's separate litigation success rate (the share of EEOC's own lawsuits that resolve favorably), a categorically different metric measured against a much smaller and self-selected population of matters the agency chose to litigate. A charge-level merit rate in the high teens and a lawsuit-level success rate in the 90s can both be accurate in the same fiscal year without being in any tension, because they describe different stages of a very different funnel.

Duration is where the merit-resolution data is most informative for employers: a charge that resolves through early conciliation or settlement typically closes faster than one where EEOC pursues a formal cause finding before referring the matter, and the merit rate trend in a given year — rising or falling — correlates with how much of EEOC's investigative capacity is going toward fast administrative closures versus the more resource-intensive path toward a cause determination. A year with a rising merit rate alongside a shrinking pending inventory suggests the agency is closing charges faster and more favorably to claimants at the same time, a combination worth watching for its effect on both the volume and the terms of employer settlements.

For insurers pricing EPLI risk, the merit-resolution trend is a better proxy for expected settlement frequency across a book of insured employers than the raw charge count, because it reflects the rate at which filed charges convert into some form of employer liability or negotiated resolution, not just the rate at which they are filed in the first place. A rising merit rate without a corresponding rise in litigation-filed volume suggests more claims are resolving administratively before litigation, which changes the shape of expected loss development for a claims-made policy relative to a year when more matters proceed to suit.

Resolution paths captured within "merit resolution" itself vary meaningfully — a negotiated settlement, a successful conciliation agreement, or a withdrawal with benefits carry different signal value about the strength of the underlying charge, even though EEOC counts them together. Criterica Intelligence frames the merit-resolution rate as a charge-level conversion metric distinct from litigation outcomes, for the employers, insurers, and funders that need the two measured separately rather than blended into a single headline percentage.

Figures on this page are drawn from official agency publications, cited individually below, and reflect the agency’s own reporting as of the date shown for each figure. They are not Criterica Intelligence model outputs, are not predictions, and are not a measure of any party’s legal exposure or liability. Agencies periodically revise prior-year figures; where a revision is known, both figures are shown with their sources. This page does not constitute legal, investment, or compliance advice.