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

Published August 27, 2026 · Last updated August 27, 2026 · By Fett Law — Michigan Employment Discrimination Attorneys

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. published numeric race- and sex-based representation goals for its professional and managerial workforce every year from 2020 through 2024, in its own Forms 10-K, its proxy statements and its press releases: at least 28 percent female representation globally and — after the original 20 percent target was met four years early and raised — at least 30 percent U.S. minority representation, both by 2025. The same documents describe demographically targeted recruiting and "Leadership Development Programs for diverse talent (women, minorities)." Practices of these kinds were the basis of two False Claims Act settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice — IBM's $17,077,043 in April 2026 and Deloitte's $21,500,000 in August 2026, in which the whistleblower was paid $4,300,000. Both resolved allegations only, with no determination of liability. Air Products has supplied liquid hydrogen to NASA under federal contracts since 1957 and won more than $140 million in new NASA awards in January 2026.

Key facts

Did Air Products set racial and gender representation goals?

The founding announcement states the goals and their baselines exactly:

"By 2025, Air Products aims to achieve at least 28 percent female representation in the professional and managerial population globally, and at least 20 percent minority representation in that same population in the United States. These measures are increases from 25 and 17 percent representation (2020 baseline), respectively."

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., "Air Products Announces New Goals for Global Female/U.S. Minority Representation in Professional and Managerial Roles," October 14, 2020 (source)

Thirteen months later the company reported that the U.S. minority goal had already been reached, and moved it:

"In October 2020, Air Products announced it wanted to achieve at least 20 percent minority representation from a 17 percent base level in its U.S. professional and managerial population by 2025. Having already reached this objective in 2021, Air Products' new goal is to achieve 30 percent minority representation in these U.S. roles by 2025."

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., "Air Products Successfully Achieves U.S. Minority Representation in Professional and Managerial Roles Objective and Sets a New Goal for 2025," November 16, 2021 (source)

Victoria Brifo, then Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, framed the increase in the same release: "We are very pleased to have met our initial goal for U.S. minorities in the targeted roles. We realize there is more work to do in order to achieve our aspirations, so we are setting this new, ambitious goal of 30 percent by 2025."

These were not marketing statements alone. Air Products repeated them to the Securities and Exchange Commission every year. The company's Form 10-K for fiscal 2024 — the last one to carry them — states, under a subsection headed "Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging":

"By 2025, Air Products aims to achieve at least 28 percent female representation in the professional and managerial population globally, and at least 30 percent minority representation in that same population in the United States."

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024, Item 1, Human Capital, filed November 21, 2024 (SEC filing)

The company also reported results against the goals. Its proxy statement filed December 9, 2022 records: "Achieved U.S. minority goal of 22% and set a new target to reach 30% minority representation by 2025." Its proxy filed December 8, 2023 reports "minority representation of 25% in U.S. professional and managerial roles and female representation of 26% in the same positions globally."

How the goals were meant to be driven. The October 2020 announcement listed the actions attached to them. Two of the bullets bear directly on how an individual employee's career could be affected:

"Accountability of senior leaders companywide to create and execute Diversity Action Plans, including diverse succession planning;"

"Leadership Development Programs for diverse talent (women, minorities);"

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., October 14, 2020 announcement (source)

What this meant in practice — and the honest limit. A goal to raise the minority share of U.S. professional and managerial roles from 17 percent to 30 percent, and the female share globally from 25 to 28 percent, can only be met by changing who is hired into and promoted into those roles. Air Products told the SEC it was pursuing exactly that, named the percentages, published its progress, and assigned senior leaders written Diversity Action Plans and "diverse succession planning" to execute against.

What Air Products did not publish is equally important, and this page states it rather than filling the gap. Every proxy statement the company filed between December 2019 and December 2025 was reviewed. None ties a diversity or representation metric to the annual incentive plan, the long-term incentive plan, or a weighted ESG scorecard. The closest language is generic — the compensation committee "has structured our executive compensation program to balance financial results with other Company values such as sustainability, safety, diversity and ethical conduct" (proxy filed December 15, 2021), and, from the proxy filed December 8, 2023 onward, that the committee "assesses our performance against our environmental, social and governance objectives and makes corresponding adjustments to executive compensation payable under our Annual Incentive Plan." No weighting, no percentage and no named diversity sub-metric accompanies either sentence. Whether the Diversity Action Plans carried numeric thresholds, and what happened to a leader who missed them, are internal facts the public record does not settle.

Did Air Products use race- and sex-conscious hiring practices?

The recruiting description appears on the company's own diversity pages, which remain live as of August 2026:

"Air Products uses innovative recruiting strategies and has long standing partnerships with diversity recruiting organizations that help strengthen the pipeline of diverse talent. In 2019, 55% of our college hires were diverse."

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., "Cultivating an Inclusive Culture," airproducts.com — live August 2026 (source)

The company tracked that figure as a metric. Its Global Reporting Initiative Content Index, still published on airproducts.com, reports U.S. college hires who were female or minority at 55% for fiscal 2019, 47% for fiscal 2020 and 38% for fiscal 2021.

The November 2021 release attributes the early achievement of the minority goal in part to the recruiting changes, and quotes the Chief Human Resources Officer: "We had tremendous success in our overall minority hiring rate for this targeted population, and many of those hires were at the manager level, thus creating further momentum in our diversity strategy."

Where Air Products did state a demographic condition on a candidate pool, it was for its board of directors rather than its workforce:

"The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is committed to actively seeking highly qualified women and minorities to include in the pool from which director nominees are selected and requires that diverse candidates be included in its initial director search lists."

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Proxy Statement for the 2022 Annual Meeting, filed December 15, 2021 (SEC filing). The same sentence appears in the proxy filed December 8, 2023 and is gone from the proxy filed December 3, 2024.

The distinction matters, in both directions. A slate mandate — a rule that a candidate list must satisfy a demographic condition before a role can be filled — is one of the four practice categories the Justice Department identified in the IBM matter. Air Products published one for its board seats. For its employees, the public record shows targeted outreach and a measured diverse-hire percentage, which is a different thing: outreach that widens a pool without changing who is selected from it generally sits on the lawful side of the line. What it does not show, either way, is what recruiters and hiring managers were actually told when a specific requisition was being filled while the company was working to raise U.S. minority representation from 17 percent to 30 percent. The people who ran those searches know.

Did Air Products run programs restricted by race or sex?

The parenthetical in the 2020 announcement is the company's own: the programs were "for diverse talent (women, minorities)." The description on the live site is broader in wording:

"We continue to invest in the unique needs of diverse talent by providing our 'Leadership Development Program for Diverse Talent,' featuring inclusive leadership modules in our development programs for new and experienced managers and through unconscious bias training for leaders and hiring managers."

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., "Cultivating an Inclusive Culture," airproducts.com — live August 2026 (source)

The company's community and pipeline page states the eligibility scope of the scholarship program it funds:

"Air Products supports NACME to provide pre-college programs and scholarships to increase the number of successful African American, American Indian and Latino women and men in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and careers."

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., "Engaging Employees and Building Our Communities," airproducts.com — live August 2026 (source)

The limit of this category, stated honestly. In the IBM and Deloitte matters the Justice Department described programs "where eligibility to participate was limited on the basis of race and sex." Air Products published a program name and a stated population — "diverse talent (women, minorities)" — but not an application rule, a selection criterion, or a statement that anyone was excluded. Whether the Leadership Development Program for Diverse Talent operated as a description of who tended to be enrolled or as an instruction about who could be, is not something the public documents answer. One page that once carried the program's own description — its listing on the CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion website — now redirects to an unrelated page, so the operative terms are no longer publicly retrievable. Employees who applied to the program, were placed in it, or administered it are the people who know what the criteria were.

Where did Air Products' DEI disclosures go?

The contrast is stark when the two Human Capital sections are set side by side. The fiscal 2024 Form 10-K carries a subsection headed "Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging," the 28 percent and 30 percent goals, and a pointer to the company's EEO-1 report: "For more information on these initiatives and to access our most recently published Equal Employment Opportunity EEO-1 Report, please refer to our Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging website."

The fiscal 2025 Form 10-K, filed a year later, contains no such subsection. Its Human Capital Management discussion opens:

"We are focused on attracting, developing, and retaining a highly-skilled workforce that will deliver excellent service to our customers. We strive to create a workforce that reflects our customers and the communities where we do business. By embracing the experiences and perspectives within our talent pool and nurturing a culture grounded in respect and collaboration, we empower employees to confidently share ideas."

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, Item 1, Human Capital Management, filed November 20, 2025 (SEC filing)

The words "diversity," "inclusion," "minority representation" and "female representation" do not appear in that section. The proxy statement filed December 11, 2025 completes the change on the governance side, replacing the board slate sentence with: "While the Board does not have a formal policy on diversity, the Guidelines provide that, as a whole, the Board should include individuals committed to the highest ethical standards who have a range of skills, competencies, backgrounds, professional experiences and viewpoints."

Meanwhile, airproducts.com/company/diversity still displays the goal table — "Women (Global) — Baseline 25%, Goal 28% by 2025" and "Minority (US) — Baseline 17%, Goal 30% by 2025" — alongside the statement: "We will not rest on our success. After achieving a publicly-stated goal for U.S. minority representation in professional and managerial roles four years ahead of schedule, Air Products has moved the goal line." The page also carries a standing commitment: "We will continue to report progress towards these goals and post future EEO-1 reports annually within sixty days following submittal of such report to the EEOC."

Two observations follow, both factual. First, the goals reached their 2025 deadline and no Air Products document reviewed for this page states whether either was met, missed, retired or replaced. Second, no published Air Products EEO-1 report was located, despite the still-live commitment to post one annually.

If any part of your own situation depends on what these pages say, capture them now. A page that is one content update away from disappearing is not a record you can rely on later.

How Air Products' DEI program changed, 2019–2026

Why these practices matter legally

Title VII protects everyone, in both directions

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, decided June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the "background circumstances" rule that several federal circuits had used to require majority-group plaintiffs to make an extra showing before their claims could proceed. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024), the Court held that a plaintiff challenging a discriminatory job transfer need show only "some harm" to an identifiable term or condition of employment — not a "significant" disadvantage. That standard reaches actions well short of a firing: a lost promotion, a lateral move, an exclusion from a development program.

Section 1981 reaches race discrimination in employment contracts

42 U.S.C. § 1981 guarantees all persons the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens, and it applies to employment relationships. Two features matter for anyone evaluating an older claim: it carries a four-year limitations period, and it requires no charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before suit. It also has no damages cap. (Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.)

The False Claims Act route for federal contractors

On April 10, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that IBM would pay $17,077,043 to resolve False Claims Act allegations that it failed to comply with anti-discrimination requirements in its federal contracts — the first settlement under the Department's Civil Rights Fraud Initiative. In August 2026 the government resolved a second, larger matter: under a settlement agreement effective August 21, 2026, five Deloitte entities agreed to pay $21,500,000, of which $9,995,000 was restitution, covering conduct from January 1, 2017 through the settlement date. The certification hook is specific — Title VII as incorporated into federal contracts and FAR clause 52.222-26 — and the government's theory reached not only what Deloitte certified to its contracting agencies but what it "publicly represented" about its compliance. The agreement adds a second and independent theory: that Deloitte "allocated costs to its federal government contracts relating to these practices and sought payment and reimbursement under its federal government contracts for such costs." The whistleblower was paid $4,300,000. Both settlements resolved allegations only, with no determination of liability, and Deloitte denies the conduct.

The practices the government described in those matters map closely onto categories Air Products documented about itself: "non-public race and sex-based workforce composition goals for business units" in the Deloitte agreement, and race and sex demographic goals and race- or sex-restricted leadership programs in the IBM matter. Air Products' position on the government-business side is a matter of record: NASA awarded it an approximately $57.3 million liquid hydrogen contract in November 2022, the company announced more than $130 million in NASA awards in March 2023 and more than $140 million in January 2026, and it has supplied the U.S. space program since 1957. Whether Air Products made the certifications those theories depend on, in any given period, and what those certifications said, is a fact-specific question the public record does not settle.

One limit belongs in its own sentence, because readers routinely get it wrong. A Justice Department settlement resolves the United States' claims and nothing else. The executed Deloitte agreement expressly reserves any pending or future charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — including "charges which may allege the same covered conduct described in this Agreement" (¶ 5(d)) — reserves "any liability of individuals" (¶ 5(g)), and reserves administrative liability including suspension and debarment (¶ 5(c)).

To be clear about what is and is not established: no court or agency has found that Air Products' practices violated any law, and no discrimination charge, EEOC action, OFCCP enforcement or False Claims Act matter involving the company was located in the public record for 2019 through 2026. But practices like those documented above — numeric race- and sex-based representation targets for a defined population of jobs, published for five years and tracked to the percentage point, with senior leaders assigned written Diversity Action Plans and "diverse succession planning" to deliver them, alongside a leadership development program described as being "for diverse talent (women, minorities)" — 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. For the complete framework — the four illegal DEI practice categories and when you can sue — see our guide, Is DEI Illegal? 4 Illegal DEI Practices & When You Can Sue.

Were you affected by these practices at Air Products?

If you worked at Air Products and Chemicals, 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 promotion into a professional or managerial role during the years the company was working to raise U.S. minority representation in exactly those roles from 17 percent to 30 percent, and reporting its progress to the percentage point.
• You applied and never reached an interview for a professional or managerial position, and cannot account for it against your record, during a period when the company credited "talent acquisition transformation practices and policies" with increasing "hiring of diverse candidates."
• You were left off a succession plan while senior leaders were assigned Diversity Action Plans that expressly included "diverse succession planning."
• You were not offered a place in the Leadership Development Program for Diverse Talent, a program the company described as being "for diverse talent (women, minorities)."
• You were a manager, recruiter, human resources professional or senior leader who carried a Diversity Action Plan — someone with first-hand knowledge of what its targets actually were, how progress was measured, and what was said when a number was not moving. The company published the results; the people who produced them know how they were produced.
• You were placed on a candidate list to help a number for a role that was already decided. Demographically driven processes injure the candidates they nominally favor too.

There is a separate question worth asking if your work touched the company's federal business. The False Claims Act's qui tam mechanism lets an individual with insider knowledge bring a claim on the government's behalf and potentially share in any recovery — the theory the Justice Department used against IBM and Deloitte. Air Products has held NASA contracts throughout the period covered here. Qui tam complaints are filed under seal, so a whistleblower's identity is initially protected while the government investigates. Both Title VII and the False Claims Act prohibit retaliation against people who assert their rights or report violations.

A federal settlement is not a substitute for your own claim: when the Justice Department resolved the Deloitte matter, it expressly preserved the EEOC's right to pursue charges alleging the very same conduct, and preserved individual liability. Nothing about that settlement compensated a single employee or applicant.

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 Air Products be worth?

Whistleblower rewards under the False Claims Act

Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d), a qui tam relator receives 15–25% of the government's recovery when the Department of Justice intervenes, and 25–30% when the relator proceeds without intervention. The Deloitte settlement supplies a paid benchmark rather than a projection: the relator received $4,300,000 — exactly 20% of a $21,500,000 recovery. That settlement also shows why False Claims Act exposure outruns the money actually lost. Of the $21.5 million, $9,995,000 was restitution — roughly the government's single damages — so the resolution came to about 2.15 times the actual loss, because FCA recoveries are built on multiplied damages plus per-claim penalties. As a second illustration, arithmetic alone: an intervened case resolving at IBM's $17,077,043 would pay a relator roughly $2.6–$4.3 million. A contractor with a larger federal book or a longer conduct period could produce a materially larger number. Relator expenses, attorney's fees and costs are resolved separately from the relator's share.

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 Air Products occupies — but race claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 carry no damages cap at all, which is one reason race discrimination cases are often pleaded under it. Several state civil-rights statutes are likewise uncapped, including Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. 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 $1.1 million jury judgment against the Michigan State Police, and a $460,000 reverse-discrimination settlement for three corrections officers. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Class action potential

Class actions are built on a single policy applied to many people. A companywide representation goal for an entire category of jobs — every professional and managerial role in the United States — is by construction companywide, and so is a directive that every senior leader carry a Diversity Action Plan. Historic employment-discrimination class settlements show the range 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