If you’ve been tracking DEI-related events in the private sector, you know a lot has happened since we first published our timeline on March 26 (see HERE). In this follow up, we continue to capture significant DEI-related events impacting the private sector, including case updates, a flurry of activity from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and responses to EEOC activity, law firm executive order (EO) updates, and the emerging trend of Big Law kowtowing to the Trump Administration’s demands.
As a reminder, the timelines track significant DEI-related events in the private sector pursuant to Executive Order 14173 (see HERE). To get up to speed on matters referenced below, see Part I of our timeline HERE.
Part II: Timeline of DEI-Related Events in the Private Sector
- March 27, 2025 (FCC investigates Disney/ABC’s DEI programs): Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr sent a letter informing Disney of an impending investigation into its DEI programs to ensure the company has “not been violating FCC equal employment opportunity regulations by promoting invidious forms of DEI discrimination.” The letter cites Executive Order 14151, and its directive to end DEI practices in FCC-regulated entities, as the basis for the investigation.
- March 27, 2025 (TRO partly blocks EO14151 & EO14173): In Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump et al., U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a narrow temporary restraining order (TRO) limiting enforcement of the Certification Provision in Executive Order 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity) and the Termination Provision in Executive Order 14151 (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferences). For additional information, see HERE.
- March 28, 2025 (WilmerHale and Jenner & Block respond to EOs): In response to the March 25 Jenner & Block EO and March 27 WilmerHale EO (see HERE), Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filed separate complaints, each of which raise multiple constitutional challenges to the EOs. Among the relief requested, the firms asked the court to declare the EOs unconstitutional and enjoin implementation of the EOs.
- March 28, 2025 (TRO partly blocks Jenner & Block and WilmerHale EOs): In separate rulings, two federal judges issued TROs blocking parts of the EOs targeting WilmerHale and Jenner & Block. Although both TROs blocked portions of the EOs that sought to terminate government contracts with the firms and their clients, and to limit firm employees’ access to federal buildings, neither judge blocked the suspension of security clearances of firm personnel or the directives to the EEOC and the Attorney General to investigate the firms’ hiring and promotion practices to determine if they violate Title VII.
- March 28, 2025 (Skadden Arps strikes deal): Skadden Arps reached what President Trump called “essentially a settlement” to allow the firm to avoid becoming the next law firm targeted by his EOs. Among other things, Skadden Arps agreed not to engage in “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences,” to commit to “merit-based hiring,” and to provide at least $100 million worth of pro bono services to support the administration’s initiatives.
- April 1, 2025 (Wilkie Farr strikes deal): To avoid an impending EO, Wilkie Farr agreed not to engage in “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences” or choose clients based on political views, and to provide $100 million worth of pro bono services to support administration initiatives. According to an internal memo, the firm stated it was “an incredibly difficult decision” but necessary to avoid “potentially grave consequences.”
- April 2, 2025 (Milbank strikes deal): To avoid a potential EO, Milbank agreed not to engage in “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences,” to provide at least $100 million worth of pro bono services to support the administration’s initiatives, and to “ensure that pro bono matters are both consistent with the objectives of the Firm and represent the full political spectrum.” An internal memo stated that “it was in the best interests of the Firm and its clients to resolve the Trump Administration’s concerns” and avoid “an unnecessary confrontation.”
- April 2, 2025 (Perkins Coie seeks permanent injunction): Following up on the March 12 temporary restraining order blocking parts of the Perkins Coie EO, Perkins Coie filed a motion for summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief requesting the court to declare the EO unlawful and to permanently enjoin the implementation or enforcement of the EO. For additional information on the Perkins Coie matter, see HERE
On the same day, 11 legal advocacy organizations filed an amicus brief in support of the motion, which among other things, argues that the EO “unconstitutionally retaliates against Perkins Coie for its constitutionally protected advocacy[,]” “violates separation of powers and due process[,]” and “intends to chill lawyers from taking positions or making arguments that are adverse to the government[.]” A similar amicus brief was filed by 363 law professors in support of the motion.
- April 3, 2025 (12 Attorneys General issue letter to 20 law firms): Following up on the EEOC Acting Chair’s March 17 letter to 20 law firms requesting information about DEI-related practices, Attorneys General from 12 states (Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas) issued a follow up letter urging the firms to comply with the EEOC’s request for information and to provide the Attorneys General with the same information by April 15, 2025. For additional details on the March 17 letter, see HERE.
- April 3, 2025 (former EEOC officials respond to EEOC Acting Chair’s guidance): Ten former EEOC officials issued a letter in response to the EEOC’s March 19 guidance document, What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work, addressing (and criticizing) several topics discussed and providing a framework for “lawful ways to increase diversity and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity” in the workplace.
Among the criticisms, the letter states the guidance chills proactive efforts still necessary “to provide equal opportunity for all employees and applicants”; suggests that “an employer having an interest in having a diverse workforce means that the employer will use illegal race and sex-based preferences to serve that interest”; discourages employers from providing DEI-related training by “raising the specter of exposure to hostile work environment liability”; and unnecessarily heightens employers’ concerns about establishing fair and non-discriminatory employee resource groups.
The letter concludes with some “legally permissible efforts” to promote equal opportunity, including “casting a wide recruitment net” to broaden talent acquisition strategies, and “collecting workforce data for barrier analysis” to identify and correct unlawful barriers. For additional details on the EEOC’s guidance document, see HERE.
- April 3, 2025 (DOL opposes March 27 TRO): The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) filed an opposition to the March 27 TRO issued by Judge Kennelly in Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump et al., arguing that the Termination Provision does not violate the First Amendment because the EO “does not attempt to regulate speech by recipients on their ‘own time and dime[,]’” but merely allows the government to terminate equity-related contracts and grants so long as the termination complies with applicable laws; and that any preliminary injunction should be limited to the plaintiff and the DOL as the plaintiff has not established standing with respect to any other federal agency.
- April 4, 2025 (Perkins Coie amicus briefs): A group of 504 law firms filed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie’s April 2 motion for summary judgment. While the Perkins Coie motion focused primarily on the effects of the Perkins Coie EO on the firm’s ability to represent its clients and sustainability as a firm, the amicus brief seeks to provide the court with a “broader perspective on the threat that the [EO] . . . poses to the integrity of [the] adversarial system, to the ability of clients to obtain the zealous representation to which they are constitutionally entitled, and to the rule of law itself.”
On the same day, a group of 346 former federal and state court judges also filed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie’s motion, arguing that the EO “imposes improper political restrictions on access to the courts” for lawyers and clients, “undermines the professional independence of counsel[,]” “improperly supplants judicial regulation of litigation conduct[,]” and “promotes hostility towards adjudication and judicial officers[.]”
- April 7, 2025 (Perkins Coie amicus brief): In further support of Perkins Coie’s April 2 motion for summary judgment, an additional 20+ law firms submitted an amicus brief to “ensure that [the firms] can continue providing . . . representation to every client — regardless of their identity, and without fear of government retribution” and to “guarantee that [the firms] can continue to defend the rule of law and hold the government accountable when it breaks the law or violates [its] clients’ rights.”
Employer Takeaways
As the Trump Administration continues to double down on its attack against DEI initiatives, it leaves in its wake a state of chaos and confusion for private employers everywhere. However, as we previously mentioned – and continue to reiterate – employers still must comply with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws and should continue implementing lawful policies and practices to ensure compliance with all applicable anti-discrimination laws.
- For a framework on “lawful ways to increase diversity and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity” in the workplace, see guidance from 10 former EEOC officials HERE.
- For takeaways on best practices to implement lawful DEI initiatives issued by 16 Attorneys General, see HERE.
If you have any questions related to any timeline events or its impact on your organization, or need assistance reviewing your DEI policies, please reach out to the NFC Attorney with whom you typically work or call us at 973.665.9100 or 619.292.0515.