The news that the EEOC has filed a sex-discrimination lawsuit against a Coca-Cola bottler for holding an all-women professional networking event is surprising — even shocking to many. 👀
According to the federal complaint, Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast hosted a paid two day women-only networking forum in September, 2024, drawing around 250 female employees with professional development, speakers, team-building, hotel accommodations, and time off — all of which male employees were not invited to enjoy. In a statement announcing the case, acting general counsel Catherine L. Eschbach stated “Excluding men from an employer-sponsored event is a Title VII violation [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] that the EEOC will act to remedy through litigation when necessary” — and is seeking relief on behalf of a male employee who said he suffered harm as a result.

The lawsuit argues that male employees missed out on both tangible benefits and professional opportunities and is seeking financial damages for those impacted, citing “emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, [and] mental anguish” in addition to lost compensation.  

This is the first lawsuit of its kind targeting workplace diversity initiatives under the current EEOC leadership, and it comes amid broader federal scrutiny of DEI programs and career development initiatives — including a separate EEOC review of Nike’s alleged practices of discrimination against white employees. 

So What’s Really Going On?

For decades — literally generations — men have had and continue to have informal, often exclusive networking opportunities at every level of corporate America without legal second-guessing. Think golf outings, hunting trips, men’s clubs, “boys’ lunch,” or industry mixers that have historically excluded women. 

Women’s networking programs are generally designed to counterbalance structural bias and underrepresentation in male-dominated fields, not to marginalize men.

But in the eyes of the EEOC here, excluding men from an employer-paid event — even for development or empowerment — may constitute unlawful discrimination under federal employment law. 

That’s a legal interpretation that could have far-reaching implications. 

Why This Matters for Women & Organizations

This lawsuit feels hypocritical to many. Why? Because women’s networking and development programs have long been recognized as a response to:

• historic exclusion from informal male networks
• uneven access to mentorship and sponsorship
• slower advancement, especially in male-dominated sectors like law, tech, and finance

If policies intended to support equity become viewed as discriminatory in themselves, organizations might rethink or even abandon them — out of fear of lawsuits rather than out of a belief in fairness.

And that raises real questions:

• Does the intent of an event matter?
• Should context — historical barriers and power imbalances — factor into how we think about workplace development programs?
• Will future networking or mentoring programs have to include all employees equally — even if the goal was to support women who’ve historically lacked access?

What This Means for Career Strategy

As someone who navigated male-dominated environments for 30+ years and wrote Play Niceand Play Smart to share practical strategies for women’s advancement, here’s what this signals:

👉 Networking and development opportunities are vital.

They’re not perks — they are strategy. And for many women, they fill gaps that systemic male networks once filled by default.

👉 But how they are structured matters — legally AND strategically.

Companies might need to rethink how to design programs that are inclusive in participation yet effective in leveling the playing field.

👉 Women — especially those early in their career — must build career capital through multiple channels:

✔ Mentorship

✔ Sponsors

✔ Skills and results

✔ Visibility

✔ Professional relationships across gender

Programs help — but nothing replaces a network you build proactively and strategically.

Final Thought

This isn’t just about a Coca-Cola bottler or workplace law.

It’s about the tension between equity initiatives and legal definitions of fairness.

It challenges us to be smarter — and more intentional — about how we empower underrepresented professionals without triggering unintended consequences.

Whether you agree with the lawsuit or not, one thing is clear:

Strategy beats panic.

If organizations want to support women’s advancement, they must create opportunities that are both powerful and lawfully inclusive.

And as professionals — especially women navigating male-dominated industries — you need multiple strategies to build influence and opportunity regardless of structure. That’s the kind of career insight Play Smart is all about. 

Join the Conversation. What do you think? should companies be able to host women-only development events? Is this lawsuit a necessary clarification or a step backward?

If this topic resonates with you, I invite you to explore more tools and real-world strategies in Play Nice and Play Smart. I write these resources because every woman deserves the confidence, clarity, and respect she needs to thrive at work.