In the sixth installment of our timelines documenting DEI-related events impacting the private sector, developments reached a feverish pitch as the administration, lawmakers, and courts revisited unresolved issues and confronted new obstacles in the quest to clarify the state of DEI in our nation. This timeline discusses new cases and case updates, agency actions taken to further the administration’s anti-DEI agenda, explosive accusations from both sides of the battleline, and much more!
As a reminder, the timelines track significant DEI-related events in the private sector pursuant to a series of anti-DEI executive orders (EO), including EO14151 (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing), EO14168 (Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government), EO14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity), and EO14281 (Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy). For additional information on the EOs, see HERE and HERE and HERE.
To get up to speed on matters referenced below, see Part I of our timeline HERE, Part II of our timeline HERE, Part III of our timeline HERE, Part IV of our timeline HERE, and Part V of our timeline HERE.
Part VI: Timeline of DEI-Related Events in the Private Sector
June 13, 2025 (lawmakers urge EEOC to protect transgender and nonbinary workers): Coinciding with the fifth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision, a group of 70 Congressional Democrats penned a letter urging U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to uphold her obligations to enforce Title VII’s gender identity protections as established in several cases, including Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (U.S. Supreme Court held discrimination based on gender stereotypes is a form of sex discrimination); Macy v. Holder (EEOC held gender identity is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII); and Bostock v. Clayton County (U.S. Supreme Court held discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited by Title VII).
The members accuse Lucas of abdicating her responsibility through actions, including:
- Halting processing of gender identity-based complaints;
- Classifying new claims of gender identity-based discrimination to the lowest priority;
- Announcing her intent to remove or modify sections in the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace because she opposes gender identity harassment; and
- Invoking EO14168 – which orders agencies to acknowledge two sexes only – in EEOC filings and prior statements.
The members remind Lucas that – as an independent agency – the EEOC’s duty is to enforce the law, and that an EO cannot overturn binding precedent or the EEOC’s obligations under Title VII.
June 16, 2025 (ABA sues government over “Law Firm Intimidation Policy”): The American Bar Association (ABA) filed a lawsuit accusing President Trump of using “the vast powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions [he] does not like” to carry out the administration’s “Law Firm Intimidation Policy” (Policy). The complaint cites action taken under the Policy, including numerous EOs issued against law firms, the threat of future EOs issued against law firms, and settlements between the administration and law firms to avoid EOs or have them rescinded.
The ABA states that the Policy is “working as designed” and has resulted in consequences, including changes in law firms’ case acceptance procedures, particularly with respect to challenges to the administration’s policies; a decline in law firms’ acceptance of pro bono cases, especially those against the government; and the ABA’s own difficulty in finding representation in litigation adverse to the administration and its policies. The ABA requested the court to declare the Policy unconstitutional and enjoin the implementation or enforcement of the Policy against the ABA or its members.
June 16, 2025 (judge blocks funding cuts over “palpable” discrimination): In Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. v. Kennedy, Jr., et al., U.S. District Judge William G. Young blocked the National Institutes for Health (NIH) from cancelling hundreds of grants to universities, hospitals, and other organizations for medical research, including those related to transgender issues and DEI initiatives. During a hearing captured by Law360, Judge Young stated that “he had never seen such ‘palpable’ racial and LGBTQ discrimination from the government.”
While U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney Thomas Ports asserted that the DEI research grants were cancelled because they are “nonscientific” and used to support unlawful discrimination, Judge Young noted that – not only is there no evidence showing the grants were used to support unlawful discrimination, but – “[f]rom what I can see, it’s the reverse.” When twice-prompted by Judge Young to point out where any particular grants were used to support unlawful discrimination, Ports simply responded, “There’s nothing that I can point the court to.”
Finding no evidence to justify the cancellations, Judge Young blocked the grant terminations and stated he would issue a full opinion at a later date (see July 2 entry for details on the opinion).
June 18, 2025 (Lucas says EEOC is “not an independent agency”): During a confirmation hearing before the Senate, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas confirmed her alignment with President Trump’s “landmark civil rights executive orders,” stating:
- “As the head of the EEOC, I am committed to dismantling identity politics that have plagued our civil rights laws.”
- “The EEOC is not an independent agency,” but rather an executive agency that must comply with the President’s orders.
- “If the president gives me a lawful directive . . . I would obey that directive.”
- “It is entirely appropriate for the president to direct the enforcement actions of the agency, consistent with law.”
Notably, Lucas’ testimony lies in direct contrast to the historic view of the EEOC as an independent federal agency – a position recognized on the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) website – and to her own statements in a 2021 then-Twitter post, in which she denounced the Biden Administration’s discharge of an EEOC general counsel as an act “against our independent agency” and “an injection of partisanship where it had been absent.” When questioned about her inconsistent statements, Lucas doubled down on her current stance, stating, “I was wrong at the time. The [EEOC] is an executive branch agency.”
June 26, 2025 (DOJ investigates UC for discrimination): While this update involves a public university, it may provide insight into the types of DEI initiatives on the administration’s radar. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division sent a letter to the University of California (UC) announcing an investigation to determine whether the school has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and sex in violation of Title VII. The investigation stems from UC’s “2030 Capacity Plan” which, among other things, aims to:
- “[S]eize its generational opportunity to become a Hispanic-serving and minority-serving system, fostering inclusive institutions and advancing . . . goals to expand opportunities for UC undergraduate students and research faculty.”
- “[I]mprove timely graduation as it also closes existing equity gaps for Pell, first-generation, or underrepresented (African American, American Indian, Chicano/Latino) students.”
- Increase “the diversity of its faculty, both underrepresented minorities and female faculty.”
In a statement to Law360, UC said it “aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported,” and that it would “work in good faith with the [DOJ] as it conducts its investigation.”
June 27, 2025 (Susman Godfrey EO ruled unconstitutional): Tallying 0-4 in the fight against BigLaw, the Trump Administration took another blow as U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan issued an opinion granting Susman Godfrey’s motion for summary and permanently enjoining the Susman Godfrey EO as unconstitutional.
Among other things, Judge AliKhan noted that the EO:
- Was issued in retaliation to the firm’s activities, “including its representation of certain clients, its donations to certain causes, and its expression of beliefs regarding diversity.”
- “[V]iolates the right of Susman and its attorneys to pursue their chosen profession.”
- “Hangs like the sword of Damocles over the firm” by “threaten[ing] penalties without sufficiently defining the conduct that triggers liability[.]”
- “[T]ramples on the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers.”
- “[T]hreatens the independence of the bar – a necessity for the rule of law.”
Accordingly, Judge AliKhan declared the Susman Godfrey EO “unconstitutional and therefore null and void” and issued an order to:
- Permanently enjoin all parties from implementing, enforcing, or taking any action based on the EO;
- Direct all parties to notify affected personnel that the EO is null and void and to disregard any prior guidance issued to implement the EO; and
- Direct all parties to notify recipients who received a request for disclosure of any relationship with the firm that the request is rescinded.
The firm released a statement, declaring the court’s ruling “a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation.”
June 27, 2025 (OFCCP opens voluntary submissions of affirmative action wind down plans): In January, President Trump issued EO14173, which revoked EO11246 and its associated federal contractor affirmative action requirements and ordered federal contractors to wind down affirmative action programs by April 21, 2025 (see HERE). Following up on the deadline, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Director Catherine Eschbach issued a letter to “offer federal contractors the opportunity to provide information about their efforts to wind down compliance with the EO11246 regulatory scheme and ensure full compliance with the Nation’s non-discrimination laws.”
The letter advises federal contractors to provide information demonstrating the discontinuation or modification of affirmative action practices taken in response to EO11246, such as:
- Trainings, funding, programs, and other opportunities made available to employees based on race or sex;
- Diversity organization ratings based on the promotion of minority or female employees;
- Use of race or sex as a factor in employment-related decisions;
- Mandating courses or training that emphasize or focus on racial stereotypes; and
- Encouraging recruitment of candidates based on race or sex.
The deadline for voluntary submissions is September 25, 2025. Additional information for submissions is available on the OFCCP Contractor Portal.
June 27, 2025 (U.S. Supreme Court says federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions): The U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant win for the Trump Administration in Trump, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al., holding that federal district courts likely do not have the Congressional authority to issue universal – or nationwide – injunctions to block executive orders (see HERE).
The case involves challenges to EO14160 (Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship) – which denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are either unlawfully present or on temporary visas – as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and § 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940. District courts in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts determined the EO is likely unlawful and issued nationwide injunctions blocking the EO. However, in a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that nationwide injunctions likely exceed the authority that Congress has granted to federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Among other things, the Court emphasized that:
- While courts may “administer complete relief between the parties,” “complete relief” is not synonymous with “universal relief.”
- The relevant question is “not whether an injunction offers complete relief to everyone potentially affected[,]” but “whether an injunction will offer complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court.”
Finding that “the Government is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts’ entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act[,]” the Court:
- Granted a partial stay of the preliminary injunctions to the extent that the injunctions are “broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff”; and
- Ordered the lower courts to “move expeditiously to ensure that . . . the injunctions comport with this rule . . . and comply with principles of equity.”
While the decision clarifies that federal district courts may no longer issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive orders, the Court leaves several issues unresolved, including:
- The constitutionality of EO14160 (see updates in July 23 & 25 entries);
- Whether federal district courts may stay agency actions on a nationwide basis; and
- The fate of prior nationwide injunctions issued barring certain agency actions.
June 30, 2025 (Harvard accused of federal civil rights violations): The administration accused the university of violating federal civil rights laws by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students from harassment. In a 57-page letter, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) cited dozens of examples to support its conclusion that “Harvard University acted with deliberate indifference towards student-on-student harassment in violation of Title VI.” While the administration previously froze over $2 billion in funding to the university and later revoked its international enrollment certification over alleged “concerns of antisemitism,” this time, the OCR threatened to cut all funding if Harvard fails to take appropriate corrective action, including through a “voluntary resolution agreement.”
July 1, 2025 (DOL seeks to eliminate most affirmative action requirements): The DOL announced proposed rules that would eliminate nearly all affirmative action requirements for federal contractors under the now-revoked EO11246 and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (see HERE and HERE). Among the changes, the proposed regulations would:
- Eliminate the OFCCP;
- Transfer enforcement of Section 503 to the EEOC;
- Confirm that contractors are no longer required to prepare affirmative action plans related to race, ethnicity, or gender;
- End contractor obligations to self-identify when filing EEO-1 reports;
- Eliminate EEO-1 filing requirements for contractors with 50 to 99 employees; and
- Eliminate self-identification invitations and the seven percent utilization goal for individuals with disabilities under Section 503.
Comments on the proposed regulations will be accepted until August 30, 2025.
July 1, 2025 (EEOC greenlights processing of transgender charges): In a significant shift from earlier guidance to cease processing gender identity-related complaints, EEOC Director of the Office of Field Programs Thomas Colclough sent an email informing staff that they were “in the clear to continue processing” transgender charges that “fall squarely under” the Bostock v. Clayton County decision – i.e., complaints involving employment-related issues, such as “hiring, discharge, or promotion.” This limited instruction aligns with the administration’s view that Bostock did not extend Title VII’s protections to harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, or access to single-sex facilities based on gender identity.
July 2, 2025 (judge finds “pervasive” discrimination in grant cuts): As promised following the June 16 hearing in Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. v. Kennedy, Jr., et al. involving the NIH’s funding cuts to medical research, Judge Young issued a detailed order, in which he found:
- “[P]ervasive racial discrimination in selecting grants for termination.”
- “[A]n unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women’s health issues.”
- “[E]xtensive discrimination against everyone whose lived experience of their sexuality is in any way different from the executive orthodoxy expressed in the President’s fiat [EO14168].”
- The NIH is being “force-fed unworkable ‘policy’ supported with sparse pseudo-reasoning, and wholly unsupported statements.”
- The record is “completely devoid of a definition” for DEI.
Judge Young noted that, while every administration has priorities and enjoys the ability to make policy changes, the agencies implementing the changes must have a “reasoned and reasonable explanation for doing so.” Finding none here, Judge Young vacated the agency actions, but noted that the court was “careful to limit the relief . . . only to the parties before it” pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s CASA decision.
July 9, 2025 (T-Mobile drops DEI programs; seeks FCC approval of new deals): Following its March 27 vow to drop DEI policies, programs, and activities, the telecom giant made good on its promise informing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in a July 8 letter that it fully eliminated DEI programs to align with FCC expectations that practices are “lawful, free from invidious forms of discrimination, and open to all.” As with the March 27 letter, this one comes as T-Mobile seeks the FCC’s approval of two new major deals. Among the “adjustments” made, T-Mobile:
- Eliminated individual roles or teams focused on DEI, and removed references to DEI on its websites;
- Affirmed that hiring and recruitment practices do not entail “hiring quotas, goals, or percentages based on race, sex, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics”;
- Made mentorship programs and development opportunities “available to everyone in a particular role or pay band”;
- Removed references to DEI from training materials;
- Replaced its “supplier diversity program” with a “supplier development program” focused on small businesses; and
- Will ensure employee resource groups “remain open to all, regardless of any protected characteristic.”
According to Law360, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr called T-Mobile’s letter “another good step forward for equal opportunity, nondiscrimination, and the public interest.” Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez disagreed, calling the letter a “cowardly corporate capitulation” that makes “a mockery of its professed commitment to eliminating discrimination, promoting fairness, and amplifying underrepresented voices.”
July 9, 2025 (House Democrat expresses concerns over T-Mobile letter): T-Mobile’s July 8 letter didn’t go unnoticed by – yet again – House Democrat Glenn Ivey. As you may recall, Ivey previously expressed concern over the FCC’s recent attacks on DEI programs following its overnight approval of the Verizon-Frontier merger a day after Verizon submitted a letter outlining its efforts to end DEI initiatives (see HERE). According to Law360, Ivey reiterated that he wants to ensure the agency investigates whether actual discrimination occurred before demanding that companies drop DEI policies. “Otherwise,” Ivey stated, “it’s arbitrary and capricious activity, and that’s illegal.”
July 9, 2025 (Congressional members probe EEOC on law firm “shakedown”): Three Congressional members issued a letter to EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas seeking information on the agency’s “involvement in the White House’s unlawful effort to coerce major U.S. law firms into providing nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to causes approved by President Trump” and requested information regarding her role “in launching sham EEOC investigations” used to “threaten and extort law firms into providing free legal services to the President’s allies.”
The members accuse Lucas of using her position to “facilitate a shakedown of prominent law firms that represented causes or employed individuals whom the President dislikes” through actions, including:
- Violating confidentiality requirements under EEOC rules and Title VII by publicizing – “with great fanfare” – the “letters of inquiry” sent to 20 law firms requesting “invasive and unusual demands for highly sensitive records and data” (see HERE);
- “[A]larming the firms and ultimately forcing them to conclude that an agreement with the administration was the best course of action”; and
- Using the EEOC as “a key part of how President Trump ‘wield[ed] the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the State to punish and suppress’ certain law firms’ advocacy, in violation of EEOC rules, federal law, and the Constitution.”
“If [the latter point is] true,” the members continue, “this is a perversion of the EEOC’s mission and makes a mockery of due process guaranteed under the Constitution, to which [Lucas] swore an oath.”
July 14, 2025 (administration says Harvard spat is contract dispute): The administration fired back at Harvard’s lawsuit against the government for freezing over $2 billion in federal funds (see HERE), filing a reply memo to back its motion for summary judgment, both of which largely ignore the underlying constitutional claims and recharacterize the lawsuit as a contract dispute over money. The government argues that – because the lawsuit is fundamentally a contract claim – the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter and the allegations fail on the merits.
The administration further argued that, even if the court has jurisdiction over the matter, Harvard’s claims still fail because the grant terminations were “legitimate exercises of agency authorities” due to Harvard’s failure to “adequately address antisemitism[,]” and Title VI does not bar the administration from canceling grants where the contracts, themselves, provide the government with the authority to do so (to see what the judge thought, see July 21 entry).
July 14, 2025 (DOJ issues guidance on English as official language): The DOJ issued guidance to implement EO14224 (“Designating English as the Official Language of the United States”), which, as the title indicates, established English as the official language of the U.S. Pursuant to the guidance, the DOJ will rescind “all prior guidance to recipients of funding regarding Title VI’s prohibition against national origin discrimination affecting limited English proficient persons”; review all existing non-English services and release plans to “phase out unnecessary multilingual offerings”; and temporarily suspend “LEP.gov and all other public-facing materials related to language access for individuals with [limited English proficiency], pending an internal review.”
Some significant shifts between prior and current DOJ guidance include:
- Prior: The DOJ posited that national origin discrimination under Title VI included discrimination against individuals with limited English proficiency.
- Current: The guidance asserts that language proficiency is not an immutable characteristic, and while language might be used as a proxy to intentionally discriminate based on national origin, “[t]he intent to discriminate based on race, color, or national origin must be present to violate Title VI.”
- Prior: The DOJ stated that the failure to provide language assistance had a disparate impact based on national origin.
- Current: The guidance states that the DOJ will no longer rely on the Title VI disparate impact regulations and further directs other agencies similarly.
The guidance encourages federal agencies to rescind any prior guidance that conflicts with EO14224; consider English-only services; use cost-effective methods to reduce translation process inefficiencies; include disclaimers noting that English is the official language; and redirect funds toward programs that improve English proficiency.
July 21, 2025 (DOJ investigates George Mason University’s practices): The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division issued a letter to George Mason University (GMU), announcing an investigation to determine whether GMU violated Title VI by discriminating against students based on race or national origin in its admissions practices and the awarding of benefits and scholarships. This investigation follows an earlier investigation into GMU’s DEI practices, which allegedly gave preferential treatment to prospective and current faculty from “underrepresented groups” to advance “anti-racism.”
July 21, 2025 (judge hears arguments in Harvard funding cuts): In a lively hearing before U.S. District Judge Alison D. Burroughs, the government attempted to justify its $2.2 billion funding cut to Harvard. According to Law360,Judge Burroughs found no evidence to demonstrate that Harvard failed to address antisemitism on campus – a reason on which the government largely relies to justify its funding cuts – and was also troubled by the government’s assertion that it can terminate the contracts for viewpoints which with the executive branch doesn’t agree, even if they are unrelated to the grants. Judge Burroughs emphasized that the issue is not whether people should be concerned about antisemitism at Harvard, but “whether there is a ‘legitimate’ relationship between the antisemitism at Harvard and the approach the administration is taking.” While Judge Burroughs did not issue a ruling, she promised a quick written decision.
July 23, 2025 (Columbia strikes deal with administration to avoid litigation): Columbia University agreed to resolve the Trump Administration’s claims that the university failed to protect Jewish students from harassment by pro-Palestine protestors, after which the government cancelled all grants and contracts with the university and further threatened to cut all funding if the university failed to meet a list of conditions set forth in a demand letter. Without admitting any wrongdoing, Columbia settled the claims to “avoid the burdens and risks of protracted litigation.”
Pursuant to the agreement, Columbia promised to pay the government $200 million over three years plus $21 million to end the EEOC’s investigations, in exchange for the reinstatement of $400 million in federal grants and the restoration of access to billions in current and future grants. Among other commitments, the university also agreed to eliminate programs that promote efforts to “achieve race-based outcomes, quotas, diversity targets, or similar efforts” and “maintain merit-based admissions policies.”
The EEOC touted the resolution as the largest public settlement in almost 20 years and reaffirmed the EEOC’s commitment to “combatting antisemitism wherever it rears its head, including the workplace—and universities are workplaces too.”
July 23, 2025 (Ninth Circuit affirms nationwide injunction post-CASA): After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to address the constitutionality of EO14160 in Trump, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al., the Ninth Circuit stepped in ruling that the EO is invalid and affirming the district court’s determination that a nationwide injunction is necessary to provide complete relief to the States. Among other things, the panel found that:
- The EO contradicts the “plain language” of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and subject to jurisdiction thereof”;
- Implementation of the EO would result in “a quantifiable loss of funding to the States”; and
- Enforcement of the EO would result “in the violation of third parties’ rights.”
Although the panel declined to address the individual claims, finding “a question of mootness[,]” it agreed with the district court’s conclusion that “the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional[.]”
July 25, 2025 (district judge refuses to narrow nationwide injunction post-CASA): Following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to affirm the nationwide injunction blocking EO14160, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts issued an order refusing to narrow its nationwide injunction blocking the EO, finding that “no workable, narrower alternative to the injunction issued” would be enough to protect the States from their asserted harms or “the potential for unanticipated consequences” in providing narrower relief.
July 29, 2025 (DOJ accuses UCLA of civil rights law violations): In a notice issued to the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the DOJ accused the institution of violating the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI by failing to adequately respond to its students’ complaints of antisemitism on campus. The DOJ “determined that UCLA was deliberately indifferent to the hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students” and sought to “enter into a voluntary resolution agreement with the University to ensure that the hostile environment is eliminated and reasonable steps are taken to prevent its recurrence.” The DOJ informs that a broader investigation into the UC system is ongoing to determine whether other campuses may have committed similar violations.
July 29, 2025 (DOJ outlines “unlawful discrimination” for federal funding recipients): The DOJ issued guidance to federal funding recipients outlining “unlawful discriminatory policies and practices” that could “result in revocation of grant funding,” and “best practices” to avoid “unlawful discrimination.” The guidance advises all entities that receive federal funds – including private employers – to ensure their programs comply with all legal obligations.
Examples of “unlawful practices” include:
- Unlawful preferential treatment, such as race-based scholarships or programs, or hiring or promotion practices that prioritize candidates from “underrepresented groups”;
- Unlawful proxies, such as “cultural competence” requirements that evaluate applicants on their racial or ethnic backgrounds, or recruitment strategies targeting geographic areas or institutions;
- Unlawful segregation, such as race-based training sessions, or segregation through program eligibility;
- Unlawful use of protected characteristics, such as “diverse slate” policies in hiring, or sex-based selection for contracts; and
- Unlawful DEI training programs, such as those that include statements stereotyping individuals based on protected characteristics.
Examples of non-binding “best practices” include:
- Ensuring inclusive access to all workplace programs and resources;
- Documenting legitimate rationales if using criteria that might correlate with protected characteristics;
- Scrutinizing neutral criteria for proxy effects;
- Eliminating diversity quotas;
- Avoiding exclusionary training programs;
- Including nondiscrimination clauses in contracts to third parties; and
- Establishing clear anti-retaliation procedures and reporting mechanisms.
Employer Takeaways
As the government’s position on lawful DEI initiatives continues to evolve, employers may be left with more questions than answers. Here’s what we do know: The EEOC continues to define Title VII’s purpose as “prohibit[ing] employment discrimination based on protected characteristics . . . . no matter which employees are harmed.” Accordingly, employers should:
- Ensure all employees are afforded equal opportunities, regardless of any protected characteristics;
- Review DEI initiatives, policies, and practices to confirm they support inclusion;
- Ensure consistent application of employment policies and practices to all employees; and
- Continue to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws.
For recommendations to promote “lawful” DEI practices from 10 former DOL officials, see HERE; to review a framework to “increase diversity and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity” from 10 former EEOC officials, see HERE; and for best practices to implement lawful DEI initiatives from 16 state attorneys general, see HERE.
If you have any questions related to any timeline events or its 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.