Attention Employers: *Part III* of Timeline of President Trump’s Crusade Against DEI Initiatives in the Private Sector

Following up on Part I (see HERE) and Part II (see HERE) of our timelines documenting DEI-related events impacting the private sector, this hefty edition continues to capture significant developments, including new executive orders (EO), new cases and case updates, actions taken by state attorneys general (AG) in support of and in opposition to the administration’s anti-DEI measures, updates from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and more! 

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 timelineHERE and Part II of our timeline HERE.

Part III: Timeline of DEI-Related Events in the Private Sector

• April 8, 2025 (Florida AG cuts ties with law firms promoting DEI): Florida’s AG issued a memo declaring that the AG’s Office “will no longer engage or approve the engagement of private law firms who have or continue to engage in illegal and inappropriate discrimination and bias.” The memo lists DEI-related practices, programs, affiliations, and memberships that will give rise to a disqualifying presumption, including Mansfield Certifications; DEI targets in hiring, promotion, and contracting; diversity mentorship or fellowship programs; DEI websites or trainings; and employee resource groups, such as NetZero Lawyers Alliance and Practice Groups, and Legal Charter 1.5.

• April 8, 2025 (Jenner & Block and WilmerHale seek permanent injunctions): Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filed separate summary judgment motions requesting the court to declare the EOs unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin enforcement of the EOs. 

• April 8, 2025 (70 general counsels back Perkins Coie): Among the numerous amicus briefs filed in support of Perkins Coie’s motion for summary judgment, a group of nearly 70 current and former general counsels for companies including Apple and Starbucks filed a brief requesting a permanent injunction, stating that the EO “tramples on corporate independence, the right to counsel, and First Amendment rights, transforming independent business and legal judgments into political calculations about presidential favor” and further, that the EO “threatens not just Perkins Coie and its clients, but any corporation or law firm that might someday advocate against this or any future president’s preferred position.” 

• April 9, 2025 (Susman Godfrey EO issued): President Trump issued EO14263, Addressing Risks From Susman Godfrey, accusing the firm of “spearhead[ing] efforts to weaponize the American legal system[,]” “degrad[ing] the quality of American elections[,]” “fund[ing] groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology,” and “support[ing] efforts to discriminate on the basis of race.” Similar to the prior EOs issued against law firms (see HERE), the Susman Godfrey EO suspended security clearances of firm personnel, limited employees’ access to federal buildings, sought to terminate federal contracts with the firm and federal contractors who hire the firm, and references the investigation of law firm DEI practices detailed in the Perkins Coie EO.

• April 11, 2025 (Susman Godfrey responds): The firm filed a complaint citing multiple constitutional violations and requesting the court to declare the EO unconstitutional and to enjoin implementation of the EO. On the same day, the firm released a statement calling the EO “unconstitutional and retaliatory” and noting that, while the firm is under attack today, “tomorrow it could be any of us.”

• April 12, 2025 (ABA sued over diversity scholarship): The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) filed a complaint against the American Bar Association (ABA) alleging the ABA’s Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund violates the Civil Rights Act by excluding white law students from consideration in the program. The program – run by the ABA’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Center – requires applicants to “be a member of an underrepresented racial and/or ethnic minority (e.g. Black/African-American, Native American, Hispanic American, Asian/Pacific Islander).” 

AAER Founder Edward Blum – who spearheaded Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action admissions policies in higher education are unconstitutional – stated that the goal is “not to eliminate ABA’s scholarships but to ensure they are based on legitimate criteria, such as a financial need or merit, rather than race.”

• April 14, 2025 (preliminary injunction extended in CWIT): In Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump et al., Judge Kennelly issued an opinion extending the March 27 preliminary injunction which, among other things, blocked enforcement of the Certification Provision for all U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) grant recipients (see HERE). Accordingly, the DOL remains prohibited from requiring any federal grantee or contractor to certify that they do not operate any unlawful DEI programs.

• April 15, 2025 (TRO issued partly blocking Susman Godfrey EO): Judge Loren L. Alikhan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a TRO partly blocking enforcement of the Susman Godfrey EO, including provisions that limit employees’ access to federal buildings and terminate federal contracts with the firm and federal contractors who hire the firm. On the same day, the firm released a statement declaring the fight to be “bigger and more important than any one firm” as the EO “infringes on the rights of all Americans and the rule of law.”

• April 15, 2025 (update on EEOC’s March 17 letter to 20 law firms): On March 17, the EEOC sent letters to 20 law firms requesting information about their DEI-related practices by April 15. As the deadline passed, 16 firms remained silent while four firms opted to enter into a settlement agreement with the EEOC to avoid an extended dispute. 

In the multi-year agreement, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and A&O Shearman Sterling, LLC affirmed their commitment to lawful merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention; agreed not to engage in unlawful discrimination or preferences; agreed not to categorize any lawful employment practices as DEI; and agreed to compliance monitoring. 

• April 15, 2025 (law students challenge EEOC’s March 17 letter): Three law students filed a complaint against the EEOC alleging the agency “grossly overstepped” and exceeded its authority by demanding information on DEI-related practices of 20 law firms in its March 17 letter. Among the information requested, the EEOC asked the firms to disclose personal information for all applicants to diversity fellowship programs, including names, race, sex, phone numbers, and compensation. Plaintiffs contend that if the investigation is allowed to proceed, they would suffer irreparable harm, including the potential that such information would be disclosed by the firms or that the government could misuse the data to target the plaintiffs or their families.

• April 15, 2025 (former DOL officials issue open letter to federal contractors): In an open letter to the federal contractor community, 10 former DOL officials sought to “help federal contractors and other employers navigate [the] complex environment, [and provide] clarity about their options and obligations under the law” in light of EO14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity), which seeks to end “illegal DEI” (see HERE). 

The letter states that the administration has no authority to forbid lawful equal opportunity programs by federal contractors because the administration cannot change legal standards established by Congress through statutory law, they may not retroactively sanction employers for previously submitted affirmative action programs that comply with prior federal requirements, and the threat of enforcement – including requiring certifications – raise substantial constitutional concerns. 

The letter sets forth recommendations to promote “effective and lawful practices[,]” including performing proactive barrier analysis to identify and remove obstacles that prevent equal employment opportunity; collecting and analyzing workforce data to ensure contractors are fully utilizing available workers who have the skills and abilities to do the job; and tracking progress through “well-crafted benchmarks” to monitor for potential discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotion, or other practices.

• April 16, 2025 (DOJ challenges Perkins Coie summary judgment motion): The DOJ filed an opposition to the firm’s April 2 motion for summary judgment, stating that the EO “directs agencies to do what they should already be doing, declines to contract with entities who act inconsistently with valid social policies regarding discrimination, and calls for the lawful examination of security clearances and government access of employees of Plaintiff’s firm.” 

• April 17, 2025 (Jenner & Block case developments): The firm filed an opposition to the DOJ’s April 8 motion to dismiss, reiterating the urgent need for a permanent injunction because the “stakes of this case extend beyond [the firm].” On the same day, the DOJ filed its own opposition to the firm’s April 8 motion for summary judgment, stating that the EO “directs agencies to do what they should already be doing, declines to contract with entities who act inconsistently with valid social policies regarding discrimination, and calls for the lawful examination of security clearances and government access of employees of Plaintiff’s firm.” 

• April 21, 2025 (Harvard sues Trump Administration): Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for freezing over $2 billion in federal funding used toward research. The decision stemmed from the administration’s “concerns of antisemitism and ideological capture” at the university and culminated with an April 11 letter, which set forth a list of conditions to “maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with federal government,” including “discontinuation of DEI” by “immediately shutter[ing] all [DEI] programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop[ping] all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies . . . to the satisfaction of the federal government[.]” 

Harvard argues that the government has not identified “any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives[.]” Instead, Harvard alleges that the case “involves the Government’s efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard.”

• April 23, 2025 (EO issued to eliminate disparate impact liability): President Trump issued EO14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, which seeks to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.” 

Among other things, the EO revokes prior presidential actions “that approved of disparate-impact liability”; directs federal agencies to “deprioritize enforcement of statutes and regulations that include disparate-impact liability”; instructs the AG to “repeal or amend all Title VII (racial nondiscrimination) regulations that contemplate disparate-impact liability”; and directs the administration to “assess all pending investigations, lawsuits, and consent judgments that rely on a theory of disparate-impact liability, and take appropriate action.” 

Notably, the EO aligns with policy suggestions included in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 which notes on page 583 that the President and Congress should eliminate disparate impact as a valid theory of discrimination under Title VII and other laws.

• April 23, 2025 (Susman Godfrey seeks permanent injunction): The firm filed a motion for summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief to end “the President’s unprecedented abuse of powers of his office.” On the same day, a group of 775 law professors filed an amicus brief in support of the firm’s motion.

• April 25, 2025 (19 AGs sue Dept. of Education over federal funding freeze): AGs from nearly 20 states – including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin – filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) for its directive to withhold funding from education institutions that engage in “illegal” DEI practices. 

Among other things, the directive requires state and local education agencies to “complete a novel and unlawful certification” to indicate agreement and compliance with the DOE’s “vague, confusing, and incorrect” interpretation of DEI under Title VII. The AGs seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief barring the DOE from implementing the agency directive.

• April 25, 2025 (BigLaw partners back Susman Godfrey): Law Firm Partners United Inc., a newly formed group comprised of over 700 partners from 200 of the nation’s largest law firms, filed an amicus brief in support of Susman Godfrey’s motion for summary judgment calling the Susman Godfrey EO “fundamentally unconstitutional” and urging the court to “swiftly and decisively invalidate the [EO].” On the same day, a group of 366 former federal and state court judges also filed a brief in support of the firm, stating that “lawyers must be free to represent their clients without fear of government retribution on political grounds.” 

Employer Takeaways

In the midst of this chaos the administration has sowed, it is important to remind employers of what DEI is and what it is not. While the administration’s actions target “illegal” DEI – or what it appears to deem as “illegal preferences” – employers should remain mindful that DEI is not the same as affirmative action or preferences based on protected characteristics. Instead, DEI seeks to ensure that all applicants and employees are afforded equal opportunities and that none are overlooked on the basis of race, sex, or any other protected characteristic.

Employers also must remain mindful that the administration’s actions do not negate employers’ obligations to comply with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws, and employers must continue implementing lawful policies and practices to ensure compliance with all applicable anti-discrimination laws.

• For recommendations to promote “effective and lawful [DEI] practices,” see guidance from 10 former DOL officials HERE.
• 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 best practices to implement lawful DEI initiatives issued by 16 AGs, 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.