In our installments of the timeline documenting DEI-related events impacting the private sector, we have been rounding up the latest developments including some public sector developments that provide insight into what may be headed for private sector workplaces. Part VII takes on trending topics such as the government and courts’ stances on religious freedoms and protections, and the lawfulness of funding cuts tied to DEI-related viewpoints and initiatives; some increasingly bold agency actions waged in the administration’s campaign against DEI; new cases filed from both sides of the battleline; several significant case updates; and much more!
As a reminder, the timelines track significant DEI-related events impacting the private sector pursuant to a series of anti-DEI executive orders (EO) (see HERE and HERE and HERE), 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)
- EO14281 (Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy)
To get up to speed on matters referenced in Part VII, 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
- Part V of our timeline HERE
- Part VI of our timeline HERE
Part VII: Timeline of DEI-Related Events Impacting the Private Sector
July 9, 2025 (DOJ issues 20 subpoenas to clinics providing gender-affirming care): The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that provide gender-affirming care for young transgender patients to investigate “healthcare fraud, false statements, and more.” Among other things, the subpoenas sought information on the medical facilities, its staff, and individual patients, including their names, social security numbers, addresses, parent/guardian information, and all medical records regarding the care. One recipient – Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) – challenged the broad request and filed a motion to quash the subpoena. To read the judge’s decision, see September 9 entry.
July 16, 2025 (OPM issues guidance on religious accommodations): The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a memo to federal employers providing “guidance concerning the roles of leave and workforce flexibilities . . . as religious accommodations and the responsibilities of supervisors in facilitating these arrangements.” Among other things, the memo encourages agencies “to adopt a generous approach to approving religious accommodations,” including:
- Telework for holidays, fasting, prayer, or other religious observances
- Compensatory time off for a religious observance or practice
- Maxiflex work schedules with core hours and flexible hours
- Engaging in a good faith interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations
July 23, 2025 (EO targets DEI in AI): President Trump issued EO14319 (Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government), which seeks to prevent federal procurement of artificial intelligence (AI) models that “sacrifice truthfulness and accuracy to ideological agendas[.]” The EO references DEI as “[o]ne of the most pervasive and destructive of these ideologies[,]” and describes it in the AI context as “the suppression or distortion of factual information about race or sex; manipulation of racial or sexual representation in model outputs; incorporation of concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism; and discrimination on the basis of race or sex.” While the EO applies to federal procurement, private sector employers may be impacted by using AI models developed by companies that incorporate the EO’s principles.
July 24, 2025 (government urges USSC to stay injunction blocking NIH grant cuts): In early July, U.S. District Judge William G. Young issued an order in Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. v. Kennedy, Jr., et al. blocking the National Institutes for Health (NIH) from cancelling grants to universities, hospitals, and other organizations for research related to transgender issues and DEI initiatives (see July 2 entry HERE). After the Fifth Circuit refused to stay the injunction, the government appealed the matter – now captioned National Institutes of Health et al. v. American Public Health Association et al. – to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to block the grant cuts and that the matter belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. For the states’ response, see August 1 entry.
July 28, 2025 (OPM issues guidance on religious expression): The OPM issued a memo to federal agencies to provide guidance on “robustly protecting and enforcing each Federal employee’s right to engage in religious expression in the Federal workplace[.]” The memo states that it “should be read in conjunction with OPM’s [religious accommodations memo]” (see July 16 entry), and emphasizes that agencies must allow employees “to engage in private religious expression in work areas to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious private expression” – unless it imposes an undue hardship. Examples of conduct that should not result in disciplinary or corrective action include:
- Display and use of items for religious purposes
- Engaging in individual or communal religious expressions
- Attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their religious views
- Encouraging coworkers to participate in religious expressions of faith, such as prayer
- Religious expressions among or directed at members of the public
- Religious expression in areas accessible to the public
July 29, 2025 (EEOC sued for transgender protections rollback): An LGBTQ+ advocacy organization sued the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the agency’s rollback on enforcement of protections against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination (see June 13 entry HERE) violates Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Among the allegations, the organization states that the agency’s actions are “rooted in defendants’ animus against transgender people” and is “part and parcel of this administration’s agenda to erase and unlawfully deny protections to transgender people in the provision of government services and across all aspects of civic life.”
July 30, 2025 (ABA seeks to toss lawsuit targeting diversity scholarship): The American Bar Association (ABA) filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), which alleges the ABA’s Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund violates the Civil Rights Act by excluding white students from consideration (see April 12 entry HERE). Among other things, the ABA states that the AAER lacks standing to bring the claims, that the AAER fails to allege a member who has standing to pursue the claim, and that the claim is barred under the First Amendment because the ABA’s “goal of eliminating bias and enhancing diversity in the profession. . . . is expressive conduct that is protected by the First Amendment.”
July 30, 2025 (Brown Univ. settles administration’s claims of antisemitism): Following Columbia University’s $221 million settlement with the government (see July 23 entry HERE), Brown University struck a similar deal to resolve alleged violations of federal anti-discrimination laws and to restore federal funding. Among other things, Brown agreed to pay $50 million to state workforce development organizations over a period of 10 years, provide “intimate facilities . . . strictly separated on the basis of sex” as defined in EO14168, refrain from providing gender-affirming care to minors, and take effective steps to combat antisemitism on campus. To get the White House’s take on the settlement, see HERE.
July 31, 2025 (Lucas confirmed for second term at EEOC): Following EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas’ heated confirmation hearing (see June 18 entry HERE), the U.S. Senate confirmed Lucas to serve a second term at the EEOC. In a press release celebrating her confirmation, Lucas reaffirmed her commitment “to enacting the bold civil rights agenda laid forth by President Trump, ensuring equal justice under the law, and focusing on the restoration of equal opportunity, merit, and colorblind equality for all members of the American workforce.”
August 1, 2025 (judge says grant termination claims belong in Court of Federal Claims): Back in May, 16 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s funding cuts for the National Science Foundation’s DEI programs pursuant to a policy that terminated awards that no longer “aligned with program goals or agency priorities” (see May 28 entry HERE). Following up, U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan issued an order finding that the court likely lacks jurisdiction over claims involving already-completed grant terminations and that the proper venue is the Court of Federal Claims.
August 1, 2025 (16 states urge USSC to uphold grant cut injunction): Following the government’s application to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay an injunction blocking the NIH from terminating grants for research related to transgender issues and DEI initiatives (see July 24 entry), a coalition of 16 states filed a brief urging the Court to reject the government’s argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction. Among other things, the states argue that Judge Young was entitled to decide the matter because the complaint was filed under the APA and centered on a policy directive issued by the NIH. For the Court’s decision, see August 21 entry.
August 5, 2025 (7th Cir. says last name usage accommodation not an undue hardship): The Seventh Circuit reinstated a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit filed by a Christian teacher alleging the school district forced his resignation after failing to accommodate his religious objection to using chosen first names of transgender students.
While the district court dismissed the suit finding the accommodation posed an undue hardship by preventing the school district from providing a safe and inclusive learning environment, a split panel reinstated the case finding that – while the accommodation caused “discomfort” for transgender students and created “tension” among the teachers – these feelings did not rise to the level of a safety issue that would pose an undue hardship. The panel remanded the case, noting that whether the accommodation caused students’ emotional distress was a question for the jury.
Judge Ilana Diamond Rover dissented, warning that the majority’s decision sets a “perilous precedent” by requiring jurors to “sit as a super-personnel department and second-guess the employer’s good faith reasoning.”
August 8, 2025 (government seeks to toss ABA’s “Law Firm Intimidation Policy” lawsuit): The government filed a motion to dismiss the ABA’s lawsuit accusing President Trump of using “the vast powers of the Executive Branch” to carry out the administration’s “Law Firm Intimidation Policy” (see June 16 entry HERE), arguing that the ABA lacks standing to bring the claim or seek prospective relief, and that its claims – based on a “hypothetical executive order” – are unripe. For the ABA’s response, see August 11 entry.
August 8, 2025 (UC ordered to pay $1 billion to resolve civil rights violations claims): Following the government’s settlements with Columbia University (see July 23 entry HERE) and Brown University (see July 30 entry),the University of California (UC) announced that the DOJ proposed a $1 billion settlement to resolve similar allegations of civil rights violations (see July 29 entry HERE). According to the LA Times, the proposal entails:
- Paying $200 million annually for five years
- Ensuring “anti-Western” foreign students are not admitted
- Annually releasing demographic data for hires, students, and applicants
- Releasing a public statement that transgender people’s identities are no longer recognized
- Ending gender-affirming care for minors
- Granting government access to “all UCLA staff, employees, facilities, documents, and data related to the agreement” not protected by attorney-client privilege
UC President James Milliken said the payment would “completely devastate [the] country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on [the] students and all Californians.” California Governor Gavin Newsom chimed in, calling the demand “extortion” and asserting that the state would “stand tall and push back” against the demand. For UC’s response, see September 16 entry.
August 11, 2025 (ABA resolution opposes law firm intimidation): Following the ABA’s lawsuit against the President’s “Law Firm Intimidation Policy” (see August 8 entry), the organization adopted a resolution to oppose “any efforts by any government actor to punish or threaten to punish lawyers, law firms, or other organizations for representing or having represented any particular client or cause disfavored by the government[.]”
August 12, 2025 (ABA removes governing board diversity requirements): The ABA approved changes to its Constitution removing diversity requirements for governing board seats. While the ABA previously set aside five seats on its Board of Governors for members of “historically marginalized groups,” these seats will now be open to all candidates committed to “eliminating bias and promoting full and equal participation in the Association, [the legal] profession, and the justice system by all persons.”
August 13, 2025 (judge says FL law banning chosen pronoun usage unlawful): U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker ruled that a 2023 Florida state law – prohibiting employees and contractors of public schools from using employees’ chosen pronouns that do not correspond with their biological sex – violated Title VII. Based on an analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision, Judge Walker found that the law forced plaintiff to choose between using her chosen pronoun or risk disciplinary action, thereby altering the terms and conditions of employment. Judge Walker stayed consideration of plaintiff’s Title VII discrimination claim pending the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in a Title VII discrimination lawsuit involving healthcare exclusions for gender-affirming procedures. For the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, see September 9 entry.
August 13, 2025 (EEOC highlights appellate decisions on accommodations): The EEOC announced the issuance of three federal sector appellate decisions that “clarify the meaning of ‘undue hardship’ in religious accommodations, as well as protect the dignity of new mothers at work.” These cases include Augustine V. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (failure to accommodate a Muslim physician’s practice of attending weekly prayer service); Andy B. v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors (failure to accommodate a Christian police officer’s request for exemption from the agency’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate); and Kasie L. v. United States Postal Service (discriminatorily requiring a new mother to use the bathroom for lactation needs when other private spaces were readily available).
August 14, 2025 (judge says DOE’s certification requirement unlawful): U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher issued a decision ruling that the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) violated the APA and the constitution when it issued guidance deeming certain types of DEI to be unlawful for schools, and demanded that schools certify compliance with the DOE’s interpretation of Title VI or risk losing federal funds. The court set aside the guidance and certification requirement, which included ending all “race-based decision-making” in admissions, financial aid, awards, and employment decisions.
August 17, 2025 (CO Governor slams FCC merger deals): Following the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) recent approvals of Verizon’s and T-Mobile’s respective deals – approved after the telecom giants formally agreed to end DEI programs and initiatives (see May 16 entry HERE and July 9 entry HERE) – Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser slammed the approvals as an “abuse of merger review processes.” According to Law360, Weiser emphasized that the FCC’s reviews should only deal with merger-specific issues,” and that it should neither concern the agenda of the commission nor the person leading the commission.
August 21, 2025 (9th Cir. upholds reinstatement of research grants): The Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the government’s request to stay a preliminary injunction which reinstated research grants terminated in accordance with anti-DEI EOs 14151 and 14173. The panel noted that the agencies selected grants for termination based on viewpoints, including DEI, in direct violation of the “bedrock principle that the government cannot ‘leverage its power to award subsidies on the basis of subjective criteria into a penalty on disfavored viewpoints’ or ‘aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas’ in the provision of subsidies.” The panel also rejected the government’s argument that it would be irreparably harmed, noting that it “cannot suffer harm from an injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice[,]” and that the remaining equitable factors do not favor the government. For the government’s response, see September 5 entry.
August 21, 2025 (USSC says district court lacked jurisdiction to decide grant cuts): Just hours after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a similar case, granting the government’s request to stay a district court’s order blocking the NIH’s grant terminations for research related to transgender issues and DEI initiatives (see July 24 entry). In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction under the APA to adjudicate claims based on research-related grants or to order relief enforcing obligations under the grants. The Court further found that the government would be irreparably harmed if the funds “cannot be recouped” and are “irrevocably expended.”
August 22, 2025 (EEOC announces religious accommodations enforcement efforts): The EEOC released its “200 Days of EEOC Action to Protect Religious Freedom at Work” in which the agency detailed its “enforcement actions over the first six months of the Trump Administration” to uphold religious liberty protections for workers. The EEOC emphasized enforcement and investigation efforts related to religious accommodations for COVID-19 vaccine policies, religious accommodations in general, and antisemitism in higher education. The agency warns that, due to confidentiality requirements, the publicized actions “represent only a small fraction of work” in its ongoing efforts to protect workers against religious discrimination.
August 22, 2025 (administration appeals Susman Godfrey EO ruling): The Trump Administration filed a notice to appeal U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan’s ruling, which permanently enjoined the Susman Godfrey EO as unconstitutional (see June 27 entry HERE). The firm stated that it will “fight the administration’s unwarranted appeal and continue to defend the rights of our clients and our colleagues.”
September 3, 2025 (judge says $2.2 billion funding cuts to Harvard unlawful): Following a hearing in which U.S. District Judge Alison D. Burroughs expressed skepticism about the relationship between the government’s $2.2 billion research grant terminations and the alleged antisemitism at Harvard (see July 21 entry HERE), Judge Burroughs issued an order finding that the funding cuts violated the First Amendment, Title VI, and the APA.
While Judge Burroughs acknowledged that Harvard “could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with [antisemitism,]” she found “little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism.” Judge Burroughs further noted that the “decision to terminate funding . . . was made before [the government] learned anything about the antisemitism on campus or what was being done in response . . . leading the court to conclude that the sudden focus on antisemitism was, at best arbitrary and, at worst, pretextual.”
Judge Burroughs also rejected the government’s argument that the matter belonged in the Court of Federal Claims and distinguished the case from the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling (see August 21 entry), noting that this matter extends beyond an “obligation to pay money pursuant to . . . grants” and involves a “constitutional principle rather than the interpretation of contract terms.” “[A]t the core of this dispute[,]” Judge Burroughs stated, “is the fact that Defendants are trying to pressure Harvard to accede to the government’s demands in a way that squarely violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights and ignores the procedural requirements of Title VI and, to a certain extent, the APA.”
September 4, 2025 (former EEOC official sues agency for hostile work environment): Former EEOC official Marc Seawright filed a formal EEO complaint against the EEOC, stating that the agency’s rollback on enforcement of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination protections (see June 13 entry HERE) fostered a hostile work environment for LGBTQ+ staff and led to him being “increasingly marginalized in the workplace . . . such that the terms and conditions of [his] employment have changed for the worse.” Seawright called upon the EEOC to retract discriminatory public statements, reinstate internal nondiscrimination policies and federal sector interpretations, restore content regarding protections against sexual orientation and gender identity-based discrimination, and to reinstate regular processing of sexual orientation and gender identity-based complaints.
September 4, 2025 (government asks 9th Cir. to reconsider research grant injunction): Following the Ninth Circuit’s order denying the government’s motion to stay an injunction requiring the reinstatement of terminated research grants (see August 21 entry), the government filed a motion asking the panel to reconsider in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling issued just hours after the Ninth Circuit issued its order (see August 21 entry). The government argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the government’s grant terminations under the APA, and that the “harms to the government and public interest” weigh in favor of a stay.
September 9, 2025 (judge says DOJ’s gender-affirming care subpoenas improper): U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun granted BCH’s motion to quash the DOJ’s request for sensitive information related to gender-affirming care (see July 9 entry) finding the subpoenas were improper and “motivated only by bad faith.” While the DOJ stated the information was necessary to investigate possible fraud or unlawful off-label promotion of drugs, Judge Joun found the “astonishingly broad array” of information requested seemed unrelated to the asserted purpose.
Judge Joun further noted the administration’s disapproval of the transgender community and found that the “subpoena reflects [its] goals” to end gender-affirming care. “[T]he true purpose of issuing the subpoena,” Judge Joun stated, “is to interfere with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ right to protect [gender-affirming care] within its borders, to harass and intimidate BCH to stop providing such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care.”
September 9, 2025 (11th Cir. says healthcare plan excluding gender-affirming care not unlawful): The Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling determining that a county employer’s health insurance plan that excluded gender-affirming surgery did not violate Title VII. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the panel reasoned that the exclusion did not facially discriminate based on transgender status because sex was not the “but-for cause” for the coverage denial – rather, the exclusion applied equally to everyone regardless of protected characteristics.
September 9, 2025 (20 jurisdictions support transgender employee fired by religious institution): A group of 19 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief in support of a former Liberty University employee who was terminated by the private religious institution after disclosing her transition. The states urged the Fourth Circuit to affirm U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon’s February ruling that Liberty University was not exempt from Title VII’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination – including discrimination based on transgender status – even if the decision was based on religious beliefs, and to reject Liberty University’s broad interpretations of the First Amendment, which “go well beyond existing precedent and threaten [their] ability to combat employment discrimination.”
September 11, 2025 (4th Cir. hesitant to uphold injunction blocking anti-DEI EOs): Back in March, in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, et al. v. Trump, the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay a March 3 preliminary injunction that blocked key components of EOs 14151 and 14173, including the termination provision, the certification provision, and the enforcement threat provision (see HERE).
In a hearing that followed, Judge Allison Jones Rushing appeared hesitant to uphold the injunction noting potential standing and ripeness issues based on the “hypothetical atmospheric” examples set forth by the plaintiffs. Judge Pamela A. Harris also noted “tension” in the plaintiffs’ contradictory arguments that while the EO that aims to terminate equity-related grants are too vague, the government makes clear that the orders intend to suppress DEI-related speech. Chief Judge Albert Diaz did, however, question the government on the necessity of the certification provision if federal anti-discrimination laws already prohibit employment bias. Judge Rushing appears to have responded for the government stating, “Sometimes presidents do things just for show.”
September 16, 2025 (UC sues administration over $1 billion demand): Following the Trump Administration’s $1 billion demand to the UC (see August 8 entry), a coalition of faculty, staff, and unions affiliated with the UC filed a lawsuit accusing the government of conducting “pretextual investigations,” unlawfully terminating funding, and making “extortionate threats in attempt to coerce the UC into sacrificing the constitutional and state law rights of its faculty, students, academic employees, and staff.” Among other things, the complaint alleges that the government’s “funding coercion playbook” – implemented against universities, including Columbia, Brown, and Harvard – is a “campaign to undermine free speech and academic freedom[,]” and calls the DOJ’s $1 billion proposal a “ransom” demanded with no lawful basis. The plaintiffs seek to set aside the termination of federal funds and the DOJ’s $1 billion demand.
Employers Takeaways
While employers should continue monitoring DEI-related updates, including agency action – which may foreshadow future guidance applicable to all employers – they remain bound by existing federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws. 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.