Verizon's DEI Employment Practices: What the Company's Own Documents Show — and What They Mean for Employees

Published August 22, 2026 · Last updated August 22, 2026 · By Fett Law — Michigan Employment Discrimination Attorneys

Verizon Communications Inc. documented demographic employment practices in its own proxy statements, ESG reports and human capital reports between 2019 and 2024 — including a workforce-diversity metric built into the management bonus plan, a stated goal of increasing the representation of women and minorities each year, demographically defined recruiting pipelines, and development programs designed around race or sex. Verizon described and ended those practices in a May 15, 2025 letter to the Federal Communications Commission. Similar practices were the basis of IBM's $17 million False Claims Act settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in April 2026.

Key facts

Did Verizon tie management pay to diversity targets?

The pay linkage appears in Verizon's own proxy statements, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and sent to shareholders. The same sentence runs across multiple years:

"To promote diversity in our workforce and encourage the contribution of diverse business partners to our success, the Human Resources Committee has included diversity targets as performance measures in the Short-Term Plan for over 20 years."— Verizon Communications Inc., 2024 Proxy Statement, p. 16 (the identical sentence appears in the 2022 Proxy Statement, p. 18, and in substance in the 2021 Proxy Statement, p. 19) (source)

Verizon's ESG reporting described the same mechanism and confirmed it was still operating:

"Verizon has a longstanding practice of including a performance measure related to workforce diversity in our short-term incentive plan. Our current plan incorporates a dedicated ESG component that includes measures related to workforce and supplier diversity."— Verizon 2023 ESG Report, p. 17 (source)

What the proxies never disclosed was the content of the target. Verizon supplied that itself, three years later, in the letter its Chief Legal Officer sent to the FCC:

"Verizon has changed the structure of its management compensation plan. Verizon's annual bonus/Short Term Incentive (STI) plan has historically included a goal to increase the representation of women and minorities in the company's U.S. workforce from the prior year's representation. Verizon has removed this metric and will no longer maintain any workforce diversity goals."— Letter from Vandana Venkatesh, EVP & Chief Legal Officer, Verizon, to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, May 15, 2025, WC Docket No. 24-445, under the heading "Representation Hiring Goals" (copy filed with the California Public Utilities Commission)

The same letter states that Verizon "has removed the supplier diversity metric from its management pay plan."

In plain terms: for the period covered by these documents, the managers who decided who was hired and promoted at Verizon were themselves measured — with bonus money attached — on whether the demographic composition of the U.S. workforce moved in a particular direction from one year to the next. When a manager's own annual number depends in part on that movement, employees and applicants have a direct interest in how the pressure was applied to individual decisions.

Did Verizon use race or sex in hiring and promotion?

Verizon's ESG reports describe applicant pools built through demographically defined partnerships:

"We are expanding national partnerships with high school, campus and professional organizations to grow the diversity of our applicant pools." … "We engage year-round with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) through executive sponsor and brand ambassador programs."— Verizon 2021 ESG Report, p. 32 (source). The 2022 ESG Report, p. 33, extends the same sentence to Hispanic-Serving Institutions (source).

"To build a more diverse pool of talent, we maintain strong relationships with partners focused on recruiting a racially and ethnically diverse workforce."— Verizon 2020 Human Capital Report, p. 5, "Recruiting Diverse Talent" (source)

"And we launched a new relationship with INROADS, a national job database with members from ethnically diverse backgrounds."— Verizon 2021 ESG Report, p. 33 (source)

Verizon also told the FCC it "has removed references to DEI from all recruitment marketing materials and will ensure all future recruitment initiatives do not disfavor any protected groups."

Sourcing partnerships are not, by themselves, the same thing as a demographic screen on a job requisition — and Verizon's own documents do not say that any applicant was excluded or preferred on the basis of a protected trait. The operative question in this section is narrower and more practical: during years when the bonus plan rewarded year-over-year movement in the representation of women and minorities, how did that goal translate into instructions given to recruiters and hiring managers? That is a question answered by people who were inside the process, not by a published report.

Did Verizon set racial or gender representation goals?

Unlike some large employers, Verizon did not publish headline numeric representation targets by job level — no "X% of leadership by 2025" figure appears in the reports reviewed. The goal existed internally and was tied to pay; the numbers behind it were not disclosed. What Verizon did publish was the tracking:

"The Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer reviews diversity representation and initiatives with the Committee at least annually."— Verizon Communications Inc., 2021 Proxy Statement, p. 19, "Oversight of Human Capital Management" (source)

And the published pay-equity goal:

"Goal: Have 100% pay equity annually in salary for women and men globally, as well as with respect to race and ethnicity in the U.S."— Verizon 2020 ESG Report, p. 12 (source)

Verizon reported its workforce composition annually in its Form 10-K. For fiscal year 2023, for example: "Women represented 36.9% of U.S. senior leadership (vice president level and above)" and "People of color represented 32.1% of U.S. senior leadership" (2023 Form 10-K, p. 11). Those are reported results, not targets — but they are the numbers a year-over-year improvement goal would have been measured against.

Operationally, a goal to raise representation over the prior year is a target somebody is accountable for hitting. Employees who worked in recruiting, HR, or line management during this period may have first-hand knowledge of how that accountability was carried into individual hiring and promotion decisions.

Did Verizon run programs restricted by race or sex?

The clearest description of the design comes from Verizon's own careers newsroom:

"Built for women across the business, WOW also values male allyship as a key component and demonstration of support."— Verizon Careers, "V Teamers pursuing their ambitions with WOW.", August 20, 2021 (source)

Verizon's 2020 Human Capital Report describes the wider set:

"Verizon has been a longtime champion of increasing the presence of women and people of color in leadership positions and across the broader technology sector. … This includes development opportunities that offer a clear path for growth while strengthening the representation of women and people of color within our leadership ranks." … "Competitive Edge helps employees from diverse backgrounds improve their productivity, effectively network and unleash their personal brand." … "In 2020, this program matched over 700 members of our BOLD (Black Originators Leaders and Doers) employee resource group and graduates of the Competitive Edge program with mentors based on skill and developmental priorities."— Verizon 2020 Human Capital Report, pp. 10–11 (source)

The 2023 ESG Report shows the programs still running: "WOW Connect, an expansion of our previous Women of the World program, offers opportunities for personal and professional skill building and community connection through interactive virtual workshops and on-demand resources," and describes "Adfellows, a nine-month paid fellowship designed to promote diversity in the marketing industry" and Break Through Tech, whose "mission" is "to increase the number of women graduating with degrees in computer science and related tech disciplines" (2023 ESG Report, p. 18).

Then, in May 2025, Verizon told the FCC:

"Verizon will not have hiring, training, leadership or development programs that are limited by race, gender or other demographic characteristics. Access to internships, mentoring, networking, career development opportunities, and any other employer-sponsored activities will be open to all consistent with Title VII."— Letter from Vandana Venkatesh to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, May 15, 2025, under the heading "Scholarships/Internships/Career Development" (source)

Two points of balance belong here. First, Verizon's published descriptions state a program's purpose and intended population; with the partial exception of WOW ("Built for women across the business"), they do not state that participation was formally closed to anyone outside that population — and Verizon's own WOW coverage describes male participation through allyship sessions. Second, Verizon told the FCC that its employee resource groups "will continue to remain open to all, regardless of race, gender or other demographic characteristics." The legal significance of a program turns on how eligibility actually worked and what concrete career benefit it delivered — facts that live with the people who ran the programs and the people who were told a program was, or was not, for them.

How Verizon's DEI program changed, 2019–2026

Why these practices matter legally

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from making employment decisions because of race or sex — and it protects every race and both sexes. Two recent Supreme Court decisions sharpened that rule. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024), the Court held that a plaintiff challenging a discriminatory job transfer need show only some harm from the change in terms or conditions of employment, not a "significant" disadvantage. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (decided June 5, 2025), the Court unanimously rejected the rule that majority-group plaintiffs must clear a higher evidentiary bar to bring a discrimination claim. Separately, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits race discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts — including employment — and carries its own four-year window with no agency filing requirement. (Statutes: Title VII, § 1981; opinions: Muldrow, Ames.)

For federal contractors there is a second layer. On April 10, 2026, International Business Machines Corporation paid $17,077,043 to resolve allegations — under the Justice Department's Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, in DOJ's first False Claims Act settlement of its kind — that it certified compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements while operating DEI practices including "a diversity modifier that tied bonus compensation to achieving demographic targets," altered "interview criteria based on race or sex through the use of 'diverse interview slates,'" "race and sex demographic goals for business units," and training, mentoring and leadership programs whose eligibility was "limited on the basis of race or sex" (DOJ press release). DOJ stated that "the claims resolved by the United States in the settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability." Those four categories, and the other major employers whose own documents described them, are set out in our guide to illegal DEI practices.

The parallel fact on the nexus side is straightforward: Verizon is a substantial federal contractor. Verizon Business Network Services LLC holds GSA's Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions contract (Verizon's own federal contract vehicle listing), and federal spending records show roughly $12.66 billion in transaction value across Verizon entities. Executive Order 14173, signed January 21, 2025, directs that federal contracts include a term requiring the counterparty "to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws," and a term making compliance with federal anti-discrimination law "material to the government's payment decisions" for False Claims Act purposes (90 FR 8633).

To be clear about what is and is not established: no court or agency has found that Verizon's practices violated any law, the reported DOJ inquiry has produced no public charge or complaint, and the IBM settlement itself resolved allegations without any admission of liability. But practices like those documented above — a bonus metric keyed to workforce representation, an annual goal of increasing the representation of women and minorities, demographically defined pipelines, and programs built around sex or race — are precisely the categories that can give rise to liability under Title VII and § 1981, and, for companies doing business with the federal government, potential False Claims Act exposure.

Were you affected by these practices at Verizon?

If you worked at Verizon Communications Inc. — or applied there — between roughly 2019 and 2025, the documented practices above may have touched your career in ways worth examining:

• You were passed over for a hire or promotion while the managers deciding were themselves measured, with bonus money attached, on year-over-year movement in the representation of women and minorities.
• You were excluded from a development, fellowship, or mentoring program — WOW, Competitive Edge, adfellows, AdDisruptors, a sponsored mentoring cohort — or were told one wasn't for you, because of your race or sex.
• You were a manager, recruiter, or HR professional with first-hand knowledge of how the representation goal in the incentive plan was actually implemented in hiring and promotion decisions.
• You were laid off or separated during a Verizon workforce reduction and signed a severance agreement without anyone reviewing whether you were giving up a discrimination claim.

Because Verizon does substantial business with the federal government, insiders with knowledge of demographic employment practices during the certification period may also have information relevant to a False Claims Act qui tam claim — a mechanism that lets individuals bring claims on the government's behalf and potentially share in any recovery. Qui tam complaints are filed under seal, so a whistleblower's identity is initially protected. Both Title VII and the False Claims Act prohibit retaliation against people who assert their rights or report violations.

If any of these fits, it costs nothing to find out where you stand — meet our DEI discrimination lawyers, or start below.

What could a claim against Verizon be worth?

Whistleblower rewards under the False Claims Act

Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d), a qui tam whistleblower (called a "relator") is entitled to 15–25% of what the government recovers when the Justice Department intervenes, and 25–30% when the relator litigates without government intervention. For scale: on a settlement the size of IBM's $17,077,043, the intervened-case whistleblower share would be roughly $2.6 million to $4.3 million. Because False Claims Act recoveries are built on treble damages plus per-claim penalties, recoveries against very large contractors can run substantially higher.

Damages in individual discrimination cases

Back pay and front pay are uncapped under Title VII. Compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII are capped by employer size — $300,000 for employers with more than 500 employees, the bracket Verizon occupies — but race claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 carry no damages caps at all, which is one reason race discrimination cases are often pleaded under it, and many state civil-rights statutes (including Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act) are likewise uncapped. Prevailing plaintiffs generally recover attorney's fees on top. For a sense of what employment discrimination cases can produce, Fett Law's own results include a $10.5 million race and age discrimination class action against Ford Motor Company, a $2 million disability harassment result, and a $1.6 million racial harassment result. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Class action potential

Class actions are built on a single policy applied to many people — and the practices documented above are companywide by design: one incentive-plan metric covering management, one U.S. workforce representation goal, development programs operating at national scale. Historic employment-discrimination class settlements show what such cases can reach: Coca-Cola paid $192.5 million (2000), Texaco $176.1 million (1996), and Novartis $175 million (2010) to resolve class claims.

Every case depends on its own facts — these figures show the range the law makes possible, not a promise of any outcome. The fastest way to learn where your situation falls is to start a confidential intake or request a free consultation.

Sources