Attention Employers: DEI Legal Developments Spotlight

Our DEI Legal Developments Spotlight discusses recent DEI-related updates impacting the private sector and public sector developments that may provide insight into similar issues in the private sector. This installment highlights focuses on:

• Race- and sex-based initiatives, programs, and policies
• Religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates
• LGBTQ+ rights and protections
• “Reverse” discrimination
• Anti-American bias
• DEI-related funding conditions

For links to our past timelines, see HERE. For our last edition of DEI Legal Developments Spotlight, see HERE

KEY DEVELOPMENTS

April 15, 2026 (9^th Cir. dismisses COVID vaccine-related lawsuit): A Ninth Circuit panel majority affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit filed by a Christian woman who—upon prayer for “wisdom and direction”—refused to abide by her employer’s COVID vaccine policy and their offered accommodation of weekly nasal swabbing in lieu of vaccination. The plaintiff asserted that submitting to either would contradict her religious duty to protect her body from “harmful substances,” including fetal cells used in vaccine development and potential carcinogens in nasal swabs. 

While the minority asserted that judges are not qualified to decide the veracity of an individual’s religious beliefs, the majority found that the connection between plaintiff’s opposition and her faith were too far attenuated, noting that her refusal was based on her understanding of secular information and that prayer alone is “insufficient to elevate personal medical judgments to the level of religious significance.” 

Related Developments

• May 6, 2026: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a religious bias lawsuit filed against a hospital by nine employees alleging they were unlawfully denied a religious exemption to the hospital’s COVID vaccine policy. While the plaintiffs argued that the hospital failed to assert the exemptions would cause financial hardship, the court found it sufficient that the hospital demonstrated a risk of undue hardship, including the risk of staffing shortages and increased COVID transmission to colleagues and patients. 
• May 15, 2026: A Washington federal court denied partial summary judgment for a group of 18 firefighters who alleged the city of Spokane unlawfully denied their religious accommodation requests to a COVID vaccine mandate. The court found that plaintiffs’ concerns about the use of fetal cells in vaccine development were insufficient to establish “whether plaintiffs’ beliefs were sincerely held or religious in nature[.]”
• May 18, 2026: The EEOC settled a religious discrimination lawsuit against an Oklahoma company for refusing to consider requests for religious exemptions to its COVID vaccine policy. The company agreed to pay $4.25 million to the fired workers, train managers on compliance with Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, inform employees on their right to reasonable accommodation, and report future accommodation requests to the EEOC.
• May 18, 2026: The EEOC issued an appellate decision finding the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Education violated Title VII by denying employees religious exemptions from the Biden Administration’s COVID vaccine mandate, despite their religious opposition to “the use of human fetal cells” in vaccine development. The agency claimed that regular testing and use of masks would be “unsafe and expensive.”

April 15, 2026 (8^th Cir. says Title IX can’t save anti-LGBTQ+ disparate impact claim): The Eighth Circuit ruled that a nonprofit—founded to “defend[] women’s sports”—cannot use Title IX to block a Minnesota high school bylaw that allows students to participate in athletics in a manner “consistent with their gender identity or expression[.]” The panel noted that it joined several other circuits in finding that Title IX provides a private right of action only for intentional discrimination claims and not disparate impact claims. 

April 15, 2026 (9^th Cir. partly dismisses “reverse” discrimination lawsuit): A North Carolina federal court partly denied engine manufacturer Cummins’ motion to dismiss a “reverse” discrimination lawsuit that alleged the company denied training and promotional opportunities to a male worker while providing the same opportunities to female workers. While the court dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims, it found that “plaintiff’s allegations that he was denied the training ‘typically provided’ for his position and available to female employees are sufficient to state a disparate treatment claim.”

April 16, 2026 (8 states sue DOE over DEI-related funding conditions): A group of eight states urged a Massachusetts federal court to restore $160 million in federal funding for teacher training and placement grants. The states allege that, “in furtherance of a series of anti-[DEI EOs]”—which prohibited the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) from funding programs that promote or take part in DEI initiatives—the DOE left plaintiffs in the “impossible position” of choosing to comply with congressional statutes that require grant recipients to address DEI, or the DOE’s conditions that prohibit addressing DEI principles. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and a vacatur of the “unlawful action.” 

April 17, 2026 (RI federal judge blocks DEI-related grant conditions for nonprofits): A Rhode Island federal judge issued temporary relief to a group of 17 domestic violence organizations blocking the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) from imposing DEI-related conditions on federal grants. The conditions—aimed to prevent recipients from using funding to serve unauthorized immigrants—required recipients to certify they do not engage in DEI activities that violate federal laws and to agree that compliance is material for purposes of the False Claims Act (FCA). The court noted that the government failed to explain their decision or provide clear guidelines on compliance, and that their actions “serve as the hallmark of unreasoned decisionmaking” that warrants preliminary relief. The court further acknowledged the harm and “inevitable chilling effect” that would arise from the “trial-and-error” approach that plaintiffs must take to learn how the administration would evaluate a program involving DEI-related components. 

Subsequent Developments

• April 30, 2026: The plaintiffs asked the court to confirm that the order stays the conditions in full, stating that while the government “narrowly interpreted the order” to stay the conditions for only three grant programs, “[n]o such limitation appears in the . . . order.” 
• May 14, 2026: The DOJ responded accusing the nonprofits of seeking to expand the order beyond the court’s findings, stating that nothing in the order “suggests that the stay applies to hundreds of other grant programs” that the plaintiffs did not challenge in this lawsuit.

April 18, 2026 (OR federal judge explains decision to void anti-LGBTQ+ HHS policy): An Oregon federal judge issued a sharply-worded opinion and order explaining his March 2026 bench ruling that vacated U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s December 2025 policy statement that declared gender-affirming care to be “neither safe nor effective for minors” and threatened funding cuts to medical providers who provided such care (see March 19 entry HERE). The court found that Secretary Kennedy’s failure to enact the rules in accordance with statutory authority and the immediate threat of funding cuts “caused chaos and terror” for people and institutions nationwide. The court further noted that the “unlawful declaration harmed children” and illustrated “that when a leader acts without authority and in the absence of the rule of law, he acts with cruelty.”

April 20, 2026 (gov’t sued over anti-DEI federal contractor EO): A group of higher education and minority trade associations sued the administration alleging the recently-issued EO14398—which bars federal contractors from engaging in “racially discriminatory DEI activities” and requires certification of compliance for purposes of the FCA—violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association and exceeds the President’s authority under the Procurement Act. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, stating that the administration:

• “[V]illainized” and “misconstrued” the concepts of DEI;
• Forces the country to “abandon efforts to promote inclusion and belonging”;
• Attempts to “erase the realities” of the nation’s history of discrimination; and
• “[V]iews discussion of race and ethnicity as unlawful[.]” 

For details on EO14398, see March 26 entry HERE.

April 20, 2026 (U.S. Supreme Court to review LGBTQ+ preschool funding challenge): The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review two Catholic parishes’ challenge to Colorado’s universal preschool program, which conditions state funding on the acceptance of students from LGBTQ+ families. While the Tenth Circuit found the nondiscrimination requirement to be constitutional, the parishes claim the program unlawfully requires them to choose between their religious views or to receive state funding. The parishes argue that, instead of facilitating “universal” preschool, the program reduces access by pushing parents and children toward preschools that share the government’s views and penalizes religious schools and parents who disagree. The Court is expected to determine how courts should assess religious discrimination challenges to laws that appear neutral and generally applicable.

April 21, 2026 (gov’t ordered to produce transgender military ban records): A Washington federal court ordered the government to produce records underlying its decision to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military. While the government asserted that the discovery requests are irrelevant because the policy concerns individuals with gender dysphoria and not transgender individuals, the court noted it had previously determined that the policy used gender dysphoria as a “proxy to ban all transgender service members.” 

Related Developments

• February 26, 2026: The EEOC voted 2-1 to approve a federal sector decision holding that Title VII permits federal employers to maintain single-sex bathrooms and exclude transgender employees from opposite-sex facilities. For details, see February 26 entry HERE.
• March 13, 2026: The DOJ defended the administration’s decision to ban transgender federal employees from using restrooms that align with their gender identity, asserting that the policy is not unlawful discrimination because it “applies evenly to both sexes regardless of trans-identifying status[.]” For details, see March 13 entry HERE.

April 22, 2026 (VA Bar asked to review EEOC Chair Lucas’ ethics): A legal advocacy nonprofit asked the Virginia State Bar to investigate whether EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas—a Virginia-licensed attorney—violated ethics rules by declining to investigate LGBTQ+ bias complaints and sending letters to BigLaw demanding information on their DEI practices (see HERE). The nonprofit states that Chair Lucas’ pattern of behavior “shows a willingness to allow political considerations to drive selective enforcement of Title VII” and that the “totality of this conduct warrants review to determine whether she remains fit to practice law in Virginia.”

April 23, 2026 (FL enacts new anti-DEI law): Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law SB1134, which effective January 1, 2027, prohibits counties and municipalities from funding, promoting, or implementing DEI-related programs, training, and offices. The law further requires potential contract or grant recipients to certify compliance with the law. 

Related Developments

• January 19, 2026: Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a formal opinion stating that any laws requiring race-based state action are presumptively unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and the state constitution. For details, see January 19 entry HERE.
• March 25, 2026: Florida Attorney General Uthmeier penned a letter to National Football League (NFL) Commissioner Roger Goodell warning that the NFL’s race- and sex-based hiring policies constitute “blatant race and sex discrimination” that is “illegal under Florida law” and demanded confirmation by May 1, 2026 that the NFL will no longer enforce these policies on Florida teams. For details, see March 25 entry HERE.
• May 13, 2026: Florida Attorney General Uthmeier issued a follow-up letter to NFL Executive Vice President Ted Ullyot stating that he is “not convinced” the NFL updated its discriminatory hiring policies and issued a subpoena to expand its investigation into the policies. 

April 23, 2026 (EEOC sued for anti-LGBTQ+ work environment): Former EEOC Director of Information Marc Seawright sued the agency accusing EEOC Chair Lucas of subjecting him to a hostile work environment and forcing him to participate in the “erasure” of LGBTQ+ individuals. Among other things, Seawright argues that Chair Lucas’ “zealous interpretation” of “anti-transgender” EO14168 “serves a broader political agenda and Lucas’ own mission to undermine and dismantle federal civil rights law.” This lawsuit follows Seawright’s earlier EEO complaint against the agency stating its rollback of LGBTQ+ protections fostered a hostile work environment for LGBTQ+ staff (see September 4 entry HERE).

April 24, 2026 (MA federal judge expands injunction on ACTS survey): A Massachusetts federal judge expanded a preliminary injunction blocking the DOE’s Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey requirement—which requires higher education institutions to submit seven years’ of race- and sex-related admissions data on a rushed timeline—for 178 higher education institutions represented by 12 intervening plaintiffs. The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the ACTS was adopted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, the court declined to stay the ACTS nationwide, leaving the survey requirement effective against more than 2,000 higher education institutions. 

Prior Developments (see March 11 entry HERE)

• March 11, 2026: A coalition of 17 states sued the DOE alleging the ACTS survey violates the APA and places unprecedented burdens on higher education institutions, including privacy risks and loss of funding for the failure to comply. 
• April 3, 2026: The court issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the ACTS against public institutions in the plaintiff states. 
• April 9, 2026: The DOE filed a motion urging the judge not to expand the injunction to cover intervening institutions, including private colleges, that filed motions requesting the same relief for their members. 

April 27, 2027 (federal court halts EEOC subpoena against UPenn): A Pennsylvania federal judge agreed to pause enforcement of the EEOC’s subpoena against the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), which seeks information related to the agency’s investigation into allegations of on-campus antisemitism. The decision stayed an earlier order requiring UPenn to comply with the subpoena, noting that while it “does not have a strong chance of prevailing on appeal[,]” a stay would allow the Third Circuit to address “a matter of great public interest.” 

Prior Developments

• November 18, 2025: The EEOC filed an action to enforce a subpoena issued against UPenn following a 2023 charge filed by then EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas alleging that the university engaged in unlawful employment practices by allowing antisemitic harassment to persist and escalate on campus and creating a hostile work environment for Jewish faculty and staff. The subpoena seeks identification and contact information of witnesses to and victims of the harassment. For details, see November 18 entry HERE.
• March 31, 2026: A Pennsylvania federal judge ordered UPenn to comply with the EEOC’s subpoena. While UPenn argued the demand was unconstitutional, the court found the request lawful so long as it did not reveal any employee’s affiliation with a specific organization. UPenn appealed the order on April 13, 2026. For details, see March 31 entry HERE.

April 27, 2026 (ABA settles diversity scholarship lawsuit): The American Bar Association (ABA) struck a deal to end the American Alliance for Equal Rights’ (AAER) lawsuit that alleged the ABA’s Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund (LOSF) discriminated against white applicants. As part of the stipulation, the ABA agreed to:

• Refrain from including eligibility requirements based on group identities, including race or ethnicity;
• Apply the eligibility requirements in a race/ethnicity-neutral manner; and
• Include language in the scholarship application stating that any request for demographic information is used solely for data-tracking purposes.

Prior Developments

• April 12, 2025: The AAER filed a complaint against the ABA alleging its LOSF violates the Civil Rights Act by excluding white law students from consideration in the program. For details, see April 12 entry HERE.
• October 31, 2025: The ABA revised the LOSF’s requirement for applicants to “be a member of an underrepresented racial and/or ethnic minority,” with the requirement that applicants “must have demonstrated a strong commitment to advancing [DEI].” For details, see October 31 entry HERE.

April 27, 2026 (NY Times: EEOC pressured to find cases aligning with White House agenda): According to the New York Times, EEOC Chair Lucas told agency employees that she feels pressured by the White House to find cases aligning with the administration’s agenda, and that staffers were struggling to find complaints with merit and were “pressed by supervisors to look for reasons to keep those cases alive, even when evidence was weak.” Cases reportedly sought include those related to discrimination against white men and American-born workers, and systemic antisemitism. 

Related Developments

• May 5, 2026: The EEOC sued the New York Times for violating federal law by choosing “not to promote a well-qualified white male [editor] because of his race and/or sex.” The EEOC stated the New York Times has a “well-documented commitment to enacting race and sex conscious decision making in the workforce through its [DEI] policies[,]” and cited the company’s “stated goals and action plans to increase non-white and female representation in its leadership positions.” Chair Lucas stated that “[t]here is no such thing as ‘reverse discrimination’” and that “all race or sex discrimination is equally unlawful[.]” 
•  May 15, 2026: An editor at the New York Times filed a motion to intervene asking the court to add state and local claims the EEOC is unable to assert.

April 28, 2026 (DOJ sues over anti-American hiring processes): The DOJ filed an administrative complaint against a data company alleging it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by “earmark[ing] certain jobs for workers on temporary employment visas.” The DOJ alleges that the company “created a different recruitment and hiring process” for individuals with temporary work visas and made it more burdensome for U.S. workers to apply for the same positions. On May 12, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor suspended processing of all permanent labor certification applications filed by, or on behalf of, Cloudera for 180 days.

Related Developments

• February 23, 2026: The DOJ announced a settlement with a Virginia-based company that allegedly posted job advertisements that included language restricting consideration to certain foreign applicants (H-1B, OPT, or H-4 visa holders). For details, see February 23 entry HERE.
• April 6, 2026: The DOJ announced a settlement with a New Jersey-based company over allegations that the company violated the INA by posting job advertisements that included citizenship status restrictions favoring those with H-1B or other temporary visas. For details, see April 6 entry HERE.

April 28, 2026 (CA federal judge expands injunction on DEI-related funding conditions): A California federal judge expanded a preliminary injunction that barred the administration from imposing “impermissibly vague” DEI-related funding conditions that required recipients to certify that they will not promote DEI, gender ideology, or elective abortion and will cooperate with federal immigration efforts. The injunction—which covered 11 cities and counties—has been expanded to cover more than a dozen additional cities and counties that have since joined the litigation. In granting the September injunction, the court noted it was “unclear how precluding DEI programming and gender ideology and cooperating with immigration enforcement are necessary to deliver effective . . . services.”

April 30, 2026 (EEOC reports on Biden Administration’s “anti-Christian bias”): The EEOC announced the publication of a 200-page report “detailing how the Biden Administration’s prosecutions, policies, and practices demonstrated anti-Christian bias throughout the federal government,” including:

• Failure to timely review federal EEO religious accommodation requests;
• Expansion of Title VII beyond statutory authority;
• Insufficient use of its platform to provide information about the agency’s process to handle vaccine religious accommodation requests; and
• An “anemic institutional response” to vaccine mandate charges.

April 30, 2026 (DOJ sues NJ over “illegal alien” tuition benefits laws): The DOJ sued the state of New Jersey for providing in-state tuition benefits to “illegal aliens,” while denying the same to U.S. citizens. The DOJ alleges that the state laws authorizing the benefits violate the Constitution and are preempted by federal laws that aim to “encourage self-sufficiency among immigrants, limit their dependence on public assistance, and prevent public benefits from serving as an incentive for illegal immigration.” The DOJ seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit enforcement of the laws.

April 30, 2026 (TX AG investigates “abuse” of visa program): Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the issuance of Civil Investigative Demands to nearly 30 businesses in an ongoing investigation into suspected abuse of the H-1B visa program and to ensure the program “puts the interests of Americans first.” The demands seek documents identifying all employees of the companies, records detailing products or services provided, financial statements, and communications related to business operations. 

Related Developments

• January 19, 2026: Texas Attorney General Paxton issued a formal opinion stating that race- and sex-based DEI frameworks violate the Equal Protection Clause and the state constitution, including state programs that prefer or consider race or sex in funding or development initiatives. For details, see January 19 entry HERE.
• March 2, 2026: Four minority businesses and a nonprofit trade group sued Acting Texas Comptroller Kelly Hancock alleging his December 2025 emergency regulation unlawfully converted the state’s Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) program—which benefited minority- and women-owned businesses in state contracting—to the “VetHUB” program, which serves only small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans. For details, see March 2 entry HERE.
• May 11, 2026: Texas Attorney General Paxton sent a letter to CVS Health warning that its Supplier Diversity Program—which “directs hundreds of millions” to minority- and women-owned businesses and LGBTQ+ enterprises—may violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The letter states that, as a Medicaid provider, CVS may not discriminate in the operation of HHS programs based on any protected characteristic, and demands that CVS notify the Office of the Attorney General of steps taken to comply with legal obligations within 14 days. 

May 4, 2026 (IBM sued over initiative to eliminate “DEI hires”):   A former IBM executive sued the company alleging it fired Black executives to “appease the Trump Administration’s demand to eliminate ‘DEI’ hires” and to “remain favored by the Defense Department and other government agencies with large IBM contracts[.]” The plaintiff asserts the “major shift” resulted in disproportionate harm to Black women who were terminated and subsequently replaced by less-qualified South Asian employees. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and a jury trial.

Related Development

• April 10, 2026: The DOJ announced a $17 million settlement with IBM under its Civil Rights Fraud Initiative to resolve allegations that the company’s DEI policies discriminated against employees and applicants based on race, sex, and other protected factors. For details, see April 10 entry HERE.

May 6, 2026 (EEOC settles religious discrimination lawsuit): The EEOC settled a religious discrimination lawsuit against a company that allegedly failed to accommodate an employee’s “sincerely held religious beliefs[,]” which precluded her from working sundown Friday through Saturday, leading the employee to quit. The company agreed to:

• Pay $55,000 to the former employee;
• Implement a comprehensive religious accommodation policy;
• Train managers and employees on religious discrimination and accommodation obligations; and
• Report complaints and accommodation requests to the EEOC.

Related Developments

• March 24, 2026: The EEOC sued Dollar General for religious discrimination alleging that a Jewish assistant store manager who observed the Sabbath was demoted because his manager “needed an assistant manager who could work Saturdays.” For details, see March 24 entry HERE. 
• March 30, 2026: The EEOC sued a security services company alleging it failed to accommodate an employee’s request to alter his schedule to allow Sunday church attendance leading to his “forced” resignation. For details, see March 30 entry HERE. 
• April 3, 2026: The EEOC sued a mail delivery contractor for the U.S. Postal Service for allegedly refusing to accommodate a Christian driver who repeatedly reminded supervisors that he needed to attend church services on Sundays. For details, see April 3 entry HERE. 

May 7, 2026 (EEOC highlights civil rights enforcement priorities): The EEOC issued a press release highlighting “exhaustive efforts to restore evenhanded enforcement of employment civil rights laws on behalf of all Americans” by “delivering on Administration civil rights enforcement priorities and implementing key deliverables entrusted to the EEOC in 11 different Executive Orders.” Highlights of actions taken include: 

• Protecting religious freedom;
• Attacking DEI-related race and sex discrimination;
• Protecting American workers from anti-American bias involving preferences for foreign workers;
• Defending women’s sex-based rights at work; and
• Reforming the EEO complaint process for federal employees.

May 11, 2026 (10^th Cir. dismisses “reverse” discrimination lawsuit): The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a white male’s complaint alleging his former employer’s workplace training created a hostile work environment for “Whites like himself.” The training program addressed “racial sensitivity and the historical suppression of racial minorities[,]” which referred to:

• “[R]ace as an unscientific concept used to justify White people’s oppression of minorities”;
• “[W]hite exceptionalism as a belief by some Whites that they aren’t racist even though they perpetuate white supremacy”; and
• “[W]hite fragility as a White person’s discomfort and defensiveness when confronted by information about racial injustice.”

The panel found that a single incident of training—and speculation about the impact of future training—is not enough to create a hostile work environment. 

May 12, 2026 (DOJ settles with PayPal over “discriminatory investment program”): The DOJ announced a $30 million settlement with PayPal to resolve an investigation into a “discriminatory investment program created for black and minority-owned businesses.” The DOJ alleged that the program—which gave preference based on race, color, and national origin—was not implemented to remediate specific instances of past discrimination. Among other things, PayPal agreed to launch a new Small Business Initiative that excludes criteria based on protected characteristics; and waive processing fees for $1 billion in transactions for small businesses that are veteran-owned or engaged in farming, manufacturing, or technology.

May 12, 2026 (EEOC sues company for anti-American bias): The EEOC sued a construction services company for allegedly violating federal law by allowing anti-American harassment and firing at least one American worker for complaining about the harassment. Among other things, the EEOC alleges that a Mexican coworker took an American worker’s tools without permission and derided him because he could not speak Spanish fluently. The American worker complained to his direct supervisor who did nothing to address the harassment. After he complained to a different supervisor, his direct supervisor fired him for complaining “above [his] head.”

May 12, 2026 (NJ Supreme Court won’t expedite public school segregation case): The New Jersey Supreme Court declined to expedite a case alleging the state’s public school system—which requires students to attend schools based on their zip code—has led to de facto segregation in violation of the state’s constitutional requirement that students receive a “thorough and efficient education.” While the lower court agreed that there is “marked and persistent racial imbalance” in New Jersey schools, it found plaintiffs failed to prove the school system as a whole is unconstitutionally segregated. The case remains pending before the Appellate Division.

Related Developments

• February 2, 2026: The Third Circuit ruled that a school district’s facially race-neutral admissions policy favoring students who lived in certain zip codes might be an unlawful proxy for race because it had the purpose and impact of benefiting students from certain races over others. For details, see February 2 entry HERE.
• March 19, 2026: A Massachusetts federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the Boston School Committee that alleged the admissions policy for three public “exam schools” discriminates against white and Asian-American students. For details, see March 19 entry HERE.

May 13, 2026 (USDA sued over religious agency emails): The National Federation of Federal Employees and a group of federal employees sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins’ practice of sending “proselytizing” agency emails “promoting her own preferred brand of Christian beliefs and theology” to a “captive audience” of agency employees. The messages—which allegedly pressured employees to hide differing beliefs—include:

• An Independence Day email stating: “May God continue to protect the United States of America and may His favor shine over all her land”;
• A Thanksgiving email crediting “a loving God” for bringing people together despite differences;
• An Easter email depicting “a stone rolled away from Jesus’ tomb” accompanied by a lengthy “Easter Sermon”; and
• A Christmas video in which she preached “the reason for the season.” 

The plaintiffs allege the messages violate the First Amendment’s prohibition against the government establishing religious preferences and the APA by departing from agency policy on sending religious messages. 

May 14, 2026 (DOJ seeks settlement with Yale over admissions practices): The DOJ issued a letter to Yale University alleging that it continues to “intentionally discriminate against applicants based on their race after the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard” by using “racial proxies to circumvent . . . the prohibition on racial discrimination.” Among other things, the DOJ accuses Yale of using a “holistic-review procedure” to “uncover and then use applicants’ race through direct and indirect means[,]” and conducting interviews that “enable the [admissions] committee to know applicants’ race and ethnicity.” The DOJ seeks a “voluntary resolution agreement” to ensure Yale’s admissions practices are brought into legal compliance.

Related Developments

• July 23, 2025: Columbia University agreed to resolve the administration’s claims that the university failed to protect Jewish students from harassment by pro-Palestine protestors. For details, see July 23 entry HERE.
• July 30, 2025: Brown University struck a deal to resolve alleged violations of federal anti-discrimination laws and to restore federal funding. For details, see July 30 entry HERE.
• October 22, 2025: The University of Virginia settled the DOJ’s civil rights investigations into its admissions and financial aid processes. For details, see October 22 entry HERE. 

EMPLOYER TAKEAWAYS

As heightened scrutiny of DEI practices continues, employers can ensure compliance with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws by taking the following steps:

• Conduct a DEI legal risk audit to ensure all employees are afforded equal opportunities;
• Schedule training for Executives, Board Members, and Managers on DEI Legal Issues to keep your team up-to-date on the DEI legal landscape; and
• Stay tuned for forthcoming installments of our DEI Legal Developments Spotlight.

---

If you have any questions related to any developments or their impact on your organization, or would like to conduct an audit of your organization’s efforts to ensure all employees and applicants are afforded equal opportunity in the workplace, please reach out to the NFC Attorney with whom you typically work or call us at 973.665.9100 or 619.292.0515.