Segar and Morris Class: Settlement Achieved in Longstanding Racial Discrimination Case Against the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency

by Michelle Hampton, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 93

I. Introduction

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) proclaims one of this nation’s most fundamental yet unrealized principles: a person shall not be denied full equality of employment opportunity on account of their race.¹ More than 21 million Black Americans make up the U.S. labor force today.² Roughly four in ten Black workers report that they have experienced discrimination or mistreatment by an employer in hiring, pay, or promotion due to their race or ethnicity.³ A quarter of U.S. workers believe being Black makes success in their workplace more difficult.⁴ When it comes to performance evaluations, 56% of Black adults say that, in general, racial and ethnic bias is a significant problem.⁵ However, this barely scratches the surface of concerning statistics regarding the workforce for Black Americans.⁶ Black Americans experience various mistreatments at significantly higher rates than other racial or ethnic groups in terms of their employment.⁷

This article discusses the case of Segar et al. v. Bondi et al., which ended decades of racially discriminatory employment practices within the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”). Part II provides an overview of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and its process for federal employee allegations of employment discrimination. Additionally, Part II explores the formation of class action lawsuits for federal employees and offers a brief overview of the issues alleged in Segar. Part III addresses the positive outcome of this matter and its impact on future cases of racial discrimination in the workplace. Finally, Part IV recognizes the beneficial effects of this decision and the harsh realities of a landmark ruling being shielded from the media.

II. Background

A. Overview: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency

The EEOC is tasked with enforcing various laws, including Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based on race or color in all facets of employment.⁸ In the fiscal year of 2024, the EEOC achieved nearly $700 million in monetary compensation for over 21,000 victims of employment discrimination, marking the highest monetary recovery in its recent history and significantly exceeding the agency’s budget of $455 million.⁹ In the same year, the EEOC processed 88,531 new discrimination charges.¹⁰ The Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) resolved 132 merit cases in 2024, resulting in a recovery of $40,399,978.00 for 4,304 individuals.¹¹ Of the 132 merit cases filed and resolved in 2024, 58.3% included Title VII claims.¹² Consequently, Title VII lawsuits accounted for most of the monetary relief obtained in 2024.¹³

Irrespective of occupation, racial discrimination and disparities persist in employment, including within local police departments and federal law enforcement agencies.¹⁴ Numerous retired Black narcotics agents assert that the DEA has systemically discriminated against its African-American employees for several decades.¹⁵ Federal law enforcement agencies have historically encountered challenges diversifying their personnel, frequently necessitating court intervention to rectify discriminatory hiring and promotion practices.¹⁶ Black agents comprise only 8% of the agency’s nearly 4,000 special agents, while individuals identifying as white comprise over 77% of those agents.¹⁷ Notably, these statistics fail to accurately represent the agency’s proclaimed commitment to recruiting, retaining, and promoting a workforce that reflects the diversity of our nation and the communities served by the agency.¹⁸ As a result, several Black agents have united to initiate legal action against the DEA for racial discrimination in its employment practices.¹⁹

B. EEOC and the Federal Sector

The law forbids discrimination in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.²⁰ An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of race or color, can be illegal if it harms the employment of people of a particular race or color and is not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business.²¹

The EEOC provides leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all aspects of the federal government’s equal opportunity program.²² The EEOC assures that federal agencies and departments comply with EEOC rules and regulations.²³ Different federal agencies enforce federal laws concerning workplace discrimination.²⁴ The EEOC coordinates the federal government’s employment non-discrimination efforts.²⁵

Federal employees are protected by law from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 years of age or older), disability, or genetic information.²⁶ The law also protects an employee from retaliation if that employee opposes employment discrimination, files a complaint of discrimination, or participates in the EEO complaint process (even if the complaint is not the employee’s).²⁷ There are also federal laws and regulations and Executive Orders (which are not enforced by the EEOC) that prohibit discrimination on basis such as sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, or political affiliation.²⁸ If a federal employee or job applicant believes that a federal agency has discriminated against them, they have the right to file a complaint.²⁹

An employee must follow several steps when filing a complaint of employment discrimination. The first step is to contact an EEO Counselor at the office responsible for the agency’s EEO complaints or where the applicant applied for a job.³⁰ The employee must contact the EEO Counselor within 45 days from the day the discrimination occurred.³¹ From there, the employee can choose whether to participate in EEO counseling or an alternative dispute resolution program such as mediation.³² If a resolution is not reached through counseling or an alternative dispute resolution, the employee may file a formal discrimination complaint against the agency with the agency’s EEO office.³³ The complaint must be filed within fifteen days from the employee receiving notice from their EEO Counselor with instructions to file.³⁴

Once the formal complaint has been filed, the agency will review the complaint and determine whether the case should be dismissed on procedural grounds or technicalities, such as late filing.³⁵ The agency will continue to investigate if the complaint is not dismissed.³⁶ The agency has 180 days from when the complaint was filed to complete its investigation.³⁷ When the investigation concludes, the agency will issue a notice providing the employee with two options: (1) request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or (2) ask the agency to issue a decision as to whether the discrimination occurred.³⁸ If the employee elects to have the agency determine whether discrimination occurred and it finds that no discrimination has been found to have occurred, or if the employee disagrees with the reasoning of the decision, the employee may initiate an appeal to the EEOC or challenge the decision in federal district court.³⁹

If an employee wants to request a hearing, the employee must upload the request and other information to the EEOC Public Portal within 30 days from the day the employee receives the notice from the agency about their hearing rights.⁴⁰ An EEOC Administrative Judge will conduct the hearing, make a decision, and order relief if discrimination is found.⁴¹ When the EEOC Administrative Judge renders a decision, the agency will issue a final order which will tell the employee whether the agency agrees with the Administrative Judge and if it will grant any relief the judge ordered.⁴² The agency then has 40 days to issue the final order which shall also include: (a) information about the employee’s right to appeal to the EEOC; (b) the employee’s right to file a civil action in federal district court; and (c) the deadline for filing both an appeal and a civil action.⁴³ If the employee so chooses, after exercising their rights to appeal and/or requesting reconsideration of the appeal decision, the employee can file a lawsuit after completing the administrative complaint process.⁴⁴

C. Overview of Class Action Lawsuits for Federal Employees

Section 1614.204 of Title 29 C.F.R. provides for processing class discrimination complaints.⁴⁵ A class is defined as a group of employees, former employees, or applicants who allege to have been adversely affected by an agency’s personnel policy or practice that discriminates against the group based on their common race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information, or disability.⁴⁶ A class complaint is a written complaint of discrimination filed on the class’s behalf by the class’s agent.⁴⁷ The complaint filed must satisfy the following elements: (a) alleging that the class is so numerous that a consolidated complaint by the members of the class is impractical, (b) that there are questions of fact common to the class, (c) that the claims of the agent of the class are typical of the claims of the class, and (d) that the agent of the class and, if represented, the representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.⁴⁸

The regulatory requirements for class complaints for federal employees follow a different structure from those for individual regular employee complaints.⁴⁹ A four-stage process for class complaints is outlined in Section 1614.204 of Title 29 C.F.R.⁵⁰ In the first stage, the class complaint is established, and the class agent must seek counseling from an agency EEO Counselor and file a complaint.⁵¹ In the second stage, the Commission Administrative Judge will reach a decision, subject to agency final action, which either implements or appeals the Administrative Judge’s decision on class certification.⁵² In the third stage, the complaint will be certified as a class action and involves yet another final decision from an Administrative Judge, but this time on the merits of the class complaint.⁵³ Lastly, in the fourth stage, a determination is reached on a finding of class-based discrimination and the identification of claims for relief of the individual class members.⁵⁴

D. Brief Overview of Segar v. Bondi

The class action civil rights case against the DEA has dragged on for decades despite a series of court orders governing the agency’s hiring and promotion practices.⁵⁵ African American Special Agents at the DEA have fought for their employer to adhere to the rights afforded them under Title VII for nearly fifty years.⁵⁶ In 1977, African American Special Agents filed a Title VII action alleging that the DEA discriminated against them in its employment practices in Segar.⁵⁷ Plaintiffs alleged discrimination in recruitment, hiring, initial grade assignments, salary, work assignments, evaluations, discipline, and promotions.⁵⁸ The certified class consisted of all African Americans who had either served, had been discharged as Special Agents at the DEA, those who had applied for positions, or would apply in the future.⁵⁹Following a two-week-long trial in 1979, the court agreed that the DEA had discriminated against Plaintiffs concerning their salary, grade at entry, work assignments, supervisory evaluations, discipline, and promotions.⁶⁰ The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the court’s liability determination in full.⁶¹ However, the court vacated some of the court’s remedial measures and remanded the case for further proceedings.⁶²

After the 1981 trial, the court directed the parties to submit proposals for further relief.⁶³ The court ordered that the DEA shall not discriminate against any Black agent concerning promotions because of his race, color, or national origin, and that it shall develop and implement new, nondiscriminatory employment systems concerning promotions.⁶⁴ Since the court’s decision in 1981, the parties have engaged in litigation to effectuate the court’s order enjoining the DEA from engaging in discriminatory practices.⁶⁵ Regarding the court’s order for the DEA to implement nondiscriminatory procedures, the DEA implemented two sets of procedures that ended up being discriminatory.⁶⁶ The first procedure implemented a Special Agent Promotion Process where agents who scored high were placed on the Best Qualified List for a position.⁶⁷ The Special Agent in Charge for the division with the vacancy could submit a list of their recommendations in order of preference.⁶⁸ The DEA’s Career Board would select an agent for the promotion.⁶⁹

Again, plaintiffs filed a motion for compliance order, arguing that the Special Agent Promotion Process continued to discriminate against them in violation of the law and court order.⁷⁰ The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and found that using the Special Agent in Charge’s list of promotion recommendations violated the court’s remedial orders and Title VII.⁷¹ The court enjoined the list of recommendations until its use could be validated as consistent with the agency’s obligations under the law.⁷² Eventually, in response to this order, a compromise between the parties was reached for the process of promoting agents to Grades 14 and 15, but just as an interim solution and not a permanent fix.⁷³ The interim procedures for this promotion process were in place for over twenty years.⁷⁴ During that time, plaintiffs determined that the interim procedures themselves had a discriminatory effect on Black agents.⁷⁵

In 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for compliance and to show cause as to why the DEA should not be held in contempt for violating the court’s orders to implement non-discriminatory procedures.⁷⁶ In 2019, the court adopted an earlier judge’s recommendation regarding the implementation and monitoring of the promotion process and procedures of the DEA.⁷⁷ The recommendation, among other things, ordered the parties to develop a modified plan for promotions to Grade 14 and 15 level positions and then look to allow implementation of the plan for future promotion practices.⁷⁸ The DEA proposed new promotion procedures and agreed to a validation study by a third party to review its promotion procedure.⁷⁹ The court agreed to these procedures in 2022.⁸⁰

Additionally, with certainty, plaintiffs were instructed to prepare the damage model they proposed to allow the defendant to concede or oppose.⁸¹ The damages model proposed by plaintiffs included an analysis of DEA promotion cycles from 1993 to 2022.⁸² The primary components of the damages model included backpay, front pay, and prejudgment interest on backpay.⁸³ The parties disagreed on the calculation of damages, and some of the components included in the model for damages.⁸⁴ But in 2024, the parties agreed in principle regarding the plaintiffs’ request for individual relief.⁸⁵ In 2025, members of the class were identified.⁸⁶ The class was certified by the court as meeting the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).⁸⁷

The settlement compensates plaintiffs who fit the class description for the unlawful discrimination suffered in the class definition.⁸⁸ The key terms of the settlement, briefly, include: (a) payment of $12,568,035.60; (b) defendants will bear the reasonable costs of notice and administration of distribution of class awards; (c) plaintiffs will release their pending claim for damages incurred as a result of defendants’ lack of compliance with the court’s 1982, 1999, and 2019 orders directing the DEA to implement non-discriminatory, validated procedures for promotions; and (d) plaintiffs will withdraw their individual relief motion within a couple business days of a final approval of the settlement.⁸⁹ The DEA’s failure to comply with the law and this Court’s orders endured so long that many damages class members retired, and even passed away, before seeing the DEA ultimately enact verified, non-discriminatory promotion procedures.⁹⁰

III. Discussion

Segar was an overlooked landmark decision highlighting racial discriminatory employment practices within a federal government agency. It is such a shame that it took the DEA decades to acknowledge its discriminatory practices and several interventions by the court. The weight of such a decision bears different meanings for both Black employees and employers.

From an employer’s perspective, this case may illustrate potential drawbacks or repercussions for an employer who knowingly continues to participate in discriminatory employment practices. Those drawbacks include continued intervention from the court to follow orders, but otherwise, it cannot continue to violate Title VII in its policies and procedures. It also doesn’t help that this decision comes from an employer who happens to be a federal government agency. So, from an employer’s viewpoint, if a federal government agency is permitted to continue discriminatory practices after being brought before the court and the agency faces no consequences for going against the court, nothing stops an ordinary employer from following in the same footsteps. The outcome of this decision has the potential to give employers a peek into what may happen if they do not obey court orders regarding their discriminatory practices. However, given the nation’s current state and the rollback of DEI and other initiatives to diversify the workforce, employers may feel even more empowered to continue practices that harm many individuals.

From the perspective of a Black employee, while the Segar decision is a huge win, it also comes with great sadness. This case, from the viewpoint of a Black employee, demonstrates just how long and how difficult it is to prove racial discrimination by an employer over decades. Even when racial discrimination was proven time and time again, the employer still chose to ignore the ruling and continue its efforts, which worked against its Black employees. It also doesn’t help that over the decades it took to decide this matter, the thresholds to prove racial discrimination in employment have continued to rise and become increasingly more difficult for employees to prove. But again, with the overhaul of DEI and other diverse initiatives, it is unfortunate, but likely that there may be an increase in racial discrimination claims by employees in the future.

Nonetheless, the court reached a historic decision. Although it took decades and many working legal professionals and judges, this matter was concluded successfully. This ruling should be considered a small beacon of hope in light of changes in administration and DEI … but that is also likely why the media have overshadowed such a monumental decision.

Furthermore, many benefits will follow from this ruling. Aside from the eyebrow-raising settlement, the entire settlement sum will be distributed among the class members. No costs will be deducted from notices sent to class members, and the nearly $14.7 million in attorney fees will be satisfied elsewhere. Additionally, there is a general baseline amount to be awarded to the class members, but the neutral third party will determine any amount above the baseline settlement. It would be interesting to know how the third party will evaluate an individual amount of damages from an interview with a class member. While the third party is to remain neutral and is separate from the parties, it would be interesting to explore how those decisions are to be made and how class members are to substantiate their claims. With such a large class and settlement to distribute, it would be no surprise if the distribution of additional individual relief continued for a few years.

IV. Conclusion

For the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the country to be blinded to this notion of racial discrimination is inconceivable and will continue to have detrimental consequences.⁹¹ It cannot be stated enough that this race discrimination case in Segar concerning employment practices against the DEA began in 1977 and has only just now, in 2025, reached its rightful conclusion. May we honor those that are no longer with us to see its ending and salute those that were brave enough to protect and serve this country while quietly fighting its history with race.

Cover Photo by Kevin Mueller on Unsplash

Michelle L. Hampton

References

1
Segar v. Bondi, 2025 WL 947513, *1 (D.D.C., 2025).
2
Katherine Schaeffer, Black workers’ views and experiences in the U.S. labor force stand out in key ways, Pew Research Center, August 31, 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/31/black-workers-views-and-experiences-in-the-us-labor-force-stand-out-in-key-ways/#:~:text=Black%20workers%20are%20the%20most,a%20disadvantage%20in%20their%20workplace.
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Camille Lloyd, One in Four Black Workers Report Discrimination at Work, Gallup, January 21, 2021, https://news.gallup.com/poll/328394/one-four-black-workers-report-discrimination-work.aspx#:~:text=These%20findings%2C%20derived%20from%20a,experience%20microaggressions%20at%20greater%20rates.
7
Id.
8
African-Americans in the American Workforce, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (last visited April 13, 2025) https://www.eeoc.gov/special-report/african-americans-american-workforce.
9
EEOC Publishes Annual Performance and General Counsel Reports for Fiscal Year 2024, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, January 17, 2025, https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-publishes-annual-performance-and-general-counsel-reports-fiscal-year-2024#:~:text=The%20EEOC%20received%2088%2C531%20new,the%20close%20of%20FY%202023.
10
Id.
11
Karla Gilbride, General Counsel, Office of General Counsel Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Report, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (last visited April 13, 2025), https://www.eeoc.gov/office-general-counsel-fiscal-year-2024-annual-report#:~:text=OGC%20resolved%20132%20merits%20suits,summary%20information%20for%20past%20years.
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Jim Mustian, Retired DEA agents say agency has legacy of discrimination, AP NEWS, June 18, 2020 5:07PM EDT, https://apnews.com/article/e3f0a78d2d0b3cbee3ea4d36d8136c6b.
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination
21
Id.
22
Federal Sector, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (last visited April 13, 2025) https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector.
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
Id.
26
https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/overview-federal-sector-eeo-complaint-process
27
Id.
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
Id.
42
Id.
43
Id.
44
Id.
45
Chapter 8 Complaints of Class Discrimination in the Federal Government, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (last visited April 13, 2025),https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/chapter-8-complaints-class-discrimination-federal-government#:~:text=Section%201614.204%20of%20Title%2029,Counselor%20and%20file%20a%20complaint.
46
Id.
47
Id.
48
Id.
49
Id.
50
Id.
51
Id.
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Jim Mustian, Retired DEA agents say agency has legacy of discrimination, AP NEWS, June 18, 2020 5:07PM EDT, https://apnews.com/article/e3f0a78d2d0b3cbee3ea4d36d8136c6b.
56
Segar v. Bondi, 2025 WL 947513, *1 (D.D.C., 2025).
57
Id.
58
Id.
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Id.
62
Id.
63
Id. at *2.
64
Id.
65
Id.
66
Id.
67
Id.
68
Id.
69
Id.
70
Id.
71
Id.
72
Id.
73
Id.
74
Id.
75
Id.
76
Id. at *3.
77
Id.
78
Id.
79
Id.
80
Id.
81
Id.
82
Id.
83
Id.
84
Id.
85
Id. at *4.
86
Id. at *5.
87
Id. at *6.
88
Id. at *4.
89
Id.
90
Id. at *11.
91
Jim Mustian, Retired DEA agents say agency has legacy of discrimination, AP NEWS, June 18, 2020 5:07PM EDT, https://apnews.com/article/e3f0a78d2d0b3cbee3ea4d36d8136c6b.