civil rights – Page 8

DEI Changes Could Leave Businesses Exposed to Discrimination Charges

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are warning employers that certain “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies and training programs could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against a person’s race, sex, or other protected characteristics in employment matters.
The EEOC and DOJ recently issued two technical assistance documents titled What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work and What to Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work, in which the EEOC explains that different treatment based on any protected characteristic can be discriminatory, and “there is no such thing as ‘reverse’ discrimination; there is only discrimination.” The EEOC goes on to state that it applies the same standard of proof to all race discrimination claims, regardless of the claimant’s race. This comes after President Trump announced that he is committed to ending “discrimination under DEI policies” and the practice of engaging in “blatant race-based and sex-based discrimination, including quotas.” These sentiments are echoed by EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas. “Far too many employers defend certain types of race or sex preferences as good, provided they are motivated by business interests in ‘diversity, equity, or inclusion.’ But no matter an employer’s motive, there is no ‘good,’ or even acceptable, race or sex discrimination,” said Lucas.
WHAT EMPLOYER ACTIONS ARE UNLAWFUL?
The EEOC explained that an employer policy, program or initiative may be unlawful if it involves an employment action motivated by race, sex, or another protected characteristic. That includes: hiring; firing; promotions; demotions; compensation; fringe benefits; access to or exclusion from training (including training characterized as leadership development programs); access to mentoring, sponsorship, or workplace networking; internships (including internships labeled as “fellowships” or “summer associate” programs); selection for interviews, including placement or exclusion from a candidate “slate” or pool; and job duties or work assignments. This extends to workplace groups like Employee Resource Groups, Business Resource Groups, or other employee affinity groups that are based on members’ protected categories like women-only groups.
Notably, an employment action is unlawful even if race, sex, or another protected characteristic was just one factor contributing to the employer’s decision or action—it does not have to be the deciding factor. Additionally, client or customer preference is not a defense to race or color discrimination; business interests in diversity and equity, including perceived operational benefits or customer/client preference are not enough to allow race-motivated employment actions.
Employers should also be aware of potential hostile work environment claims. The EEOC states that employees may be able to plausibly allege that a diversity/DEI training creates a hostile work environment if they can show the training was discriminatory in its content, context, or application.
Finally, it is important to recognize that employees who oppose or complain about employer policies, trainings, or practices labeled as “DEI” can also be legally protected from retaliation.
POTENTIAL SUPREME COURT REVERSE DISCRIMINATION RULING
The Trump Administration’s approach to the standard of proof for reverse discrimination claims may soon be backed by the courts. On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. In that case, a heterosexual woman alleged she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted in favor of a LGBTQ+ colleague. Ms. Ames stated she was discriminated against because she was not gay and made a claim of reverse discrimination. Legal precedent in some circuits require plaintiffs in reverse discrimination cases to meet a higher burden than that of a traditional discrimination case. Legal experts have predicted that the Court will find that reverse discrimination cases should be decided based on the same standard, which would make it easier to allege and prove reverse discrimination.
In light of these recent developments, reverse discrimination cases are expected to increase. Employers should review their policies, training programs, and hiring programs to ensure they are in compliance with the EEOC’s guidance and anticipated ruling in the Ames case.

EEOC Enforcement Activities Take Shape Under Second Trump Administration

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been a regular topic of the flurry of executive orders issued by President Trump since his inauguration. Even before his return to the Oval Office, there was speculation about how the EEOC’s enforcement activities and priorities might change during a second Trump administration, as well as how the composition of the EEOC’s leadership would likely transform. In the weeks following the inauguration, the EEOC’s goals began to take shape, with its leadership seeing significant rearrangement. Manufacturers should stay current on these modifications as they signal substantial changes in the agency’s policies and anticipated future enforcement priorities and initiatives.
On January 24, 2025, President Trump dismissed two of the EEOC’s Democratic Commissioners and appointed Andrea Lucas as Acting Chair, leaving one Democratic Commissioner and one vacancy. The EEOC’s current leadership composition means it lacks a quorum and cannot issue regulations or guidance, or rescind or replace regulations or guidance issued by the previous administration. Importantly, these changes do not affect the EEOC’s ability to engage in enforcement activities.
Prior to President Trump’s second term, it was anticipated that the EEOC was preparing to scale back protections for LGBTQ+ workers. This shift came to fruition beginning in February, when the EEOC moved to voluntarily dismiss six lawsuits that it had filed during the Biden administration on behalf of aggrieved plaintiffs, alleging discrimination based on transgender status in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In withdrawing from its representation, the EEOC noted in filings that continued litigation is untenable “in light of recent [a]dministration policy changes.” The EEOC’s voluntary dismissal of the lawsuits represents a major departure from its prior interpretation of the protections afforded under Title VII and its guidance issued during the Biden administration, in which the EEOC took the position that the intentional misuse of an employee’s preferred pronouns constituted discrimination and harassment.
Although the EEOC has chosen to step back from its representation of the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, the same federal law that authorizes the EEOC to sue on their behalf also provides the plaintiffs with a right to intervene in and pursue the litigation on their own behalf.
In light of these developments, manufacturers should remain aware of the following when making decisions related to the recruitment, hiring, and termination, as well as other terms and conditions of employment:

Although the EEOC may change its enforcement priorities, an executive order cannot override federal laws and constitutional rights. This includes the federal law authorizing individuals to intervene in litigation brought by the EEOC and pursue litigation on their own behalf as well as the Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes “sex discrimination” in violation of Title VII.
The federal government’s labor and employment law enforcement activities and policies are separate from those of state and local governments, which may continue or even increase their efforts in reaction to changes at the federal level.
It is possible that the EEOC’s enforcement activities will continue to change, so it is crucial for manufacturers to stay current on executive orders, guidance, and enforcement initiatives at the federal level.

Manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with regard to the EEOC’s enforcement initiatives, guidance, and other communications.

‘Illegal DEI’ Still Undefined in New EEOC, DOJ Guidance: Compliance Considerations for Employers

Takeaways

The guidance is “focused on educating the public about unlawful discrimination related to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) in the workplace.”
DEI-related activities will be scrutinized under Title VII standards.
Employers should ensure their DEI policies and programs align with Title VII.

CMS’s ACA Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Proposed Rule – What it may mean for Health Plans

Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its 2025 Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Proposed Rule (Proposed Rule), proposing a number of enrollment and eligibility policies impacting both Federal and State Exchanges. While CMS frames these policies as necessary to combat fraud and abuse, the impact will be a reduction in enrollment in the ACA Marketplace – with the Proposed Rule estimating that between 750,000 and 2 million fewer individuals enroll in health insurance plans on the Exchanges in 2026.
The effective date of most of these provisions also coincides with the expiration of the enhanced premium subsidies, which the Biden administration extended through December 31, 2025 through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). These enhanced subsidiaries increased the amount of financial assistance individuals received and expanded eligibility for assistance. On December 5, 2024, the Congressional Budget Office wrote a letter to Congress indicating that the failure to extend these subsidies would result in 2.2 million individuals losing coverage in 2026 and an increase in premiums by 4.3%.
This article outlines the major provisions of the Proposed Rule, followed by a discussion of their potential impact on plans participating in the ACA Marketplace.
Key Provisions of the Proposed Rule
Income Verification Policies. In its Proposed Rule, CMS proposes several changes to the income verification process for applicants to apply through the Exchanges. Although CMS stated that these policies are necessary to combat fraud, CMS provided limited examples and evidence of fraud. Such policies include:

Removing the exception allowing Exchanges to rely on an applicant’s self-attestation of projected income, if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not have tax return data to verify household income and family size. Exchanges would need to verify individuals’ enrollment, requiring enrollees to provide additional documentation.
Requiring additional income verification in instances where an applicant’s self-reported projected household income is between 100% and 400% of the Federal poverty level (FPL) but federal tax or other data shows that an applicant’s prior year’s income was below 100%. Individuals would have to prove that their income for the upcoming year is between 100% to 400% of the FPL or be unable to enroll in a plan on an Exchange. This change intends to attempt to identify individuals who may “overinflate” their income to be eligible for coverage. Currently, no income verification is required if the applicant projects a higher income than in their tax return.
Eliminating an automatic 60-day extension (in addition to the general 90-day deadline) when documentation is needed to verify household income in instances of income inconsistency.

Allowing Insurers to Deny Coverage for Past Due Premiums. CMS proposes to repeal a provision which currently prohibits insurers from requiring enrollees to pay past-due premium amounts in order to receive coverage under a new insurance policy or contract term. CMS consequently proposes, subject to state law, to allow insurers to add an enrollee’s past-due premium amount to the initial premium amount the enrollee must pay to effectuate coverage under a new policy or contract term and allow insurers to deny coverage to individuals if the total of past-due premiums and the initial premium amount are not paid in full. The stated purpose of this policy is (i) to curtail individuals from taking advantage of guaranteed coverage and seeking coverage when they need health care services, and (ii) to strengthen the risk pool and lower gross premiums.
Revision of Premium Payment Thresholds. CMS proposes to remove flexibilities that currently allow insurers to implement a fixed dollar and/or gross percentage-based premium payment threshold. Under current rules, insurers may consider enrollees to have fully paid their premiums if (i) under the fixed-dollar premium payment threshold, the enrollee has paid a total premium amount such that the unpaid remainder is $10 or less (adjusted for inflation), or (ii) under the gross percentage-based premium payment threshold, the enrollee has paid a total premium amount sufficient to achieve 98% or greater of the total gross monthly premium of the policy before the application of the advance premium tax credit (APTC). Under the Proposed Rule, insurers would only be allowed to implement a net premium percentage-based payment method where enrollees can meet the threshold by paying a total premium amount sufficient to achieve 95% or greater of the total net monthly premium amount owed.
Ineligibility for APTCs after one Year of Failing to Reconcile. CMS proposes to revise the “failure to file and reconcile process” by reinstating a 2015 policy that requires Exchanges to determine whether an individual is ineligible for the APTC if he or she did not file a Federal income tax return and reconcile their APTC amount in any given year. Currently, individuals will be deemed ineligible for failure to file and reconcile for a two-year span.
Changes to Open and Special Enrollment Periods. Under the Proposed Rule, CMS also seeks to shorten the Open Enrollment Period (OEP) and make several changes to Special Enrollment Periods (SEPs), including:

Shortening the OEP for all individual market Exchanges and off-Exchange individual health insurance (that are non-grandfathered) from November 1st to January 15th to November 1st to December 15th.
Removing the “low-income SEP” from both the Federal and State Exchanges. Currently, individuals whose projected household income is at or below 150% of the FPL have a SEP under the Federal and most State-based Exchanges whereby they can enroll or change plans on a monthly basis. CMS is proposing to remove this SEP. The stated purpose of this action is to reduce adverse selection (i.e., reduce the number of enrollees who sign up for health insurance only when they need coverage).
Requiring pre-enrollment verifications for applicants seeking coverage through a SEP. Currently, the Exchanges allow applicants to self-attest that, due to a change of circumstance, they qualify for a SEP (e.g., loss of employer coverage, marriage). The Proposed Rule would change the ability to self-attest and require applicants to submit documentation to the Exchanges.

Requiring Active Re-Enrollment. CMS also seeks to eliminate automatic re-enrollment for fully subsidized enrollees by proposing to require that enrollees whose premium payment amount would be $0 after application of the APTC, would be required to pay a $5 monthly premium until they update their Exchange application with an eligibility redetermination confirming their eligibility for the APTC.
Repeal of Bronze to Silver Plan Cross-Walking. CMS proposes to repeal regulations that currently allow Exchanges to move enrollees eligible for cost sharing reduction, which covers the cost of out-of-pocket healthcare costs and deductibles, from a bronze Qualified Health Plan (QHP) to a silver QHP for an upcoming plan year if a silver QHP is available (i) in the same product, (ii) with the same provider network, and (iii) with a lower or equivalent net premium post APTC-application.
Ineligibility of DACA Recipients. CMS proposes to remove Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients from the definition of “lawfully present,” which in effect renders DACA recipients ineligible for enrollment in a QHP through the Exchange.
Prohibition of Coverage of Gender Affirming Care. CMS proposes to prohibit health insurance plans subject to the ACA’s essential health benefits (EHBs) from providing sex-trait modification, also commonly known as gender-affirming care, beginning Plan Year 2026. EHBs are ACA required minimum coverage categories that plans subject to the ACA must cover; EHBs are state or region specific and are determined based upon comparison to an EHB-benchmark plan that all other plans must mirror. This prohibition would in effect restrict all non-grandfathered insurance plans in the individual and small group markets, on- and off- Exchange, from covering sex-trait modification services.
Updates to the Premium Adjustment Methodology. CMS further seeks to update the premium adjustment methodology, which is used to set several different coverage parameters, including maximum out-of-pocket cost-sharing (MOOP), premiums, and tax credits. By way of background, the current premium adjustment methodology took a more stable approach given the uncertainty of premiums during the end of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. Under the Proposed Rule, beginning in 2026, CMS is proposing using an adjusted private individual and group market health insurance premium measure. Such a change will likely cause an increase of MOOP and an increase in premiums.
Updating De Minimis Thresholds. Plans on the Exchange are considered bronze, silver, gold, and platinum based on their actuarial value – whereby bronze plans must cover 60% of an average enrollee’s costs, silver plans cover 70%, gold plans cover 80%, and platinum plans cover 90%. Insurers may offer a specific plan if it is within a “de minis range” of this target value – for example, insurers may offer bronze plans so long as the actuarial value is within +5% and -2% of 60%. Similarly, insurers can offer a silver, gold, and platinum plan, if its value is within +2/-2 percentage points. CMS proposes to change the de minimis ranges to +2/-4 percentage points for all individual and small group market plans subject to the actuarial value, except expanded bronze plans. Further, CMS seeks to include a de minims range of +1/-1 percentage points for income-based silver cost-share reduction plan variations (which was previously −0/+1 percentage points). In the Proposed Rule, CMS estimates that this proposal would decrease premiums by one percent; however, it is likely to reduce the APTCs available.
Evidentiary Standard for Terminating Agents and Brokers. The Proposed Rule seeks to revise the standard for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to terminate for-cause agents, brokers, and web-brokers from the Federally-facilitated Exchange by adding a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof regarding issues of fact. HHS may terminate its agreements with agents, brokers, and web-brokers for-cause for instances of non-compliance, fraud, and abusive conduct. Currently, regulations do not indicate an evidentiary standard HHS must apply; instead, the regulation states that HHS may terminate “in HHS’s determination.” CMS states that this change would “improve transparency in the process of holding agents, brokers, and web-brokers accountable for compliance.”
Potential Impacts to Plans
This Proposed Rule will have a direct impact on enrollment in the Exchanges. By adding measures that will increase premiums, reduce APTCs, and increase the administrative burden of applying and verifying enrollment, CMS will in effect discourage enrollment and decrease the number of individuals eligible for enrollment. Further, the changing rules may specifically discourage younger and/or healthier individuals from enrolling. This decrease in enrollment, coupled with the expected decrease in enrollment due to the expiration of the enhanced subsidies, could threaten the stability of the ACA Marketplace in the long run.

EEOC Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination in the Workplace

On March 20, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued two key pieces of guidance: What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at WorkandWhat You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work. It is crucial for employers to understand the potential implications of DEI programs and initiatives, and these pieces of guidance provide insight into what the EEOC will be monitoring. This article highlights key aspects of DEI-related discrimination and provides practical advice for employers to navigate these issues effectively.
What is DEI-Related Discrimination?
The guidance states that DEI-related discrimination occurs when an employer’s actions, policies, or practices are motivated, in whole or in part, by an employee’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic. Title VII prohibits such discrimination in various aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, compensation and access to training and mentorship programs, and this guidance emphasizes these aspects of employment. Additionally, both pieces of guidance also identify access to fellowships/internships, networking, and sponsorship; fringe benefits; demotion; selection for interviews; and job duties. It applies to employees, applicants, interns and participants in training programs.
Recognizing Disparate Treatment
The guidance cautions that DEI initiatives could violate Title VII by leading to disparate treatment or create a hostile work environment. Disparate treatment involves treating employees differently based on race, sex or other protected characteristics. These guidance documents also state that using quotas or “balancing” a workforce based on these characteristics could be unlawful.
Reverse Discrimination
The guidance explains that Title VII protections apply to all employees and applicants, not just those part of a minority group, diverse, historically under-represented or women. The guidance also states that there is not a higher showing of proof for reverse discrimination claims.
Avoiding Segregation and Classification
The guidance also emphasizes that employers may not limit, segregate or classify employees in ways that affect their employment status or opportunities. This includes restricting membership in workplace groups or separating employees during DEI training based on protected characteristics, even if the content is the same for all groups.
Addressing Harassment and Hostile Work Environments
The guidance explains that workplace harassment is illegal when it results in an adverse change to employment terms or is so severe that it creates a hostile work environment. DEI training that includes discriminatory content or application can contribute to such an environment, according to these guidance documents. Employers should ensure that DEI programs are designed and executed in a manner that respects all employees’ rights.
Understanding Retaliation
The guidance explains that Title VII protects employees from retaliation for engaging in protected activities, such as opposing discriminatory practices or participating in investigations. In particular the guidance states that opposing unlawful discrimination that is labeled as DEI could be protected activity.
Practical Advice for Employers

Review DEI Policies: Regularly review and update DEI programs and policies to ensure compliance with Title VII. Consider how these pieces of guidance suggest the EEOC would view the programs and policies. Evaluate whether the company might be believed to be using quotas or making employment decisions based on race, sex or other protected characteristics.
Train Managers and Employees: Provide training on recognizing and preventing discrimination and harassment. Evaluate whether anti-discrimination or DEI training would be experienced as inclusive and respectful of all employees.
Encourage Open Communication: Foster an environment where employees feel comfortable reporting discrimination or harassment without fear of retaliation.
Consult Legal Experts: Work with legal professionals to navigate complex DEI-related issues and address compliance with federal and state laws.

New Workplace Policies Employers Should Consider

As the workplace landscape continues to evolve, employers must stay ahead of emerging challenges by implementing thoughtful and proactive policies.
In 2025, three key areas stand out as critical for fostering a positive and productive work environment: promoting collaboration and respect, supporting employee well-being, and responsibly integrating artificial intelligence. In this article, we’ll explore how well-crafted policies in these areas can enhance workplace culture, ensure compliance, and boost employee satisfaction.
Policies Promoting Collaboration, Respect, and Opportunity
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) is a key employment topic to prioritize in 2025. On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, which encourages private employers to end “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.” This executive action directs federal agencies to promote “the policy of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work” in the private sector, and it directs the Attorney General to submit a report containing recommendations for enforcement measures to end “illegal discrimination and preferences.”
Despite the recent executive action, employers may still implement a policy addressing collaboration, respect, and opportunity in the workplace. In implementing this policy, employers should balance between an initiative that will aim to ensure fair treatment and equal opportunity for all, regardless of background, as opposed to one that incites claims of discrimination. An effective policy on collaboration, respect, and opportunity can foster a positive working environment, promote a sense of belonging and satisfaction, boost morale, and drive innovation.
Well-Being in the Workplace
Workplace well-being has transitioned from a perk to a necessity. Often, when an employee’s well-being deteriorates, so does their job performance. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (last updated April 2023) (“NAMI”):

Approximately 1 in 5 adults in the United States experience mental illness each year; and
Approximately 1 in 20 adults in the United States experience a serious mental illness each year.

Additionally, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) data shows that charges of discrimination based on mental health conditions (including substance use disorders) are substantial. Well-being not only has a physical and social impact on the individual employee, but it also has a financial impact on the employer as employee well-being impacts productivity levels and healthcare costs.
A comprehensive well-being in the workplace policy provides guidance on collaboration between employees, encourages healthy habits through on-site initiatives, provides access to mental health resources, and implements strategies designed to promote social engagement (for example, a well-being in the workplace policy may offer days off for volunteering activities). An effective well-being in the workplace policy can reduce the stigma surrounding mental health and stress, cultivate a sense of purpose and accomplishment in the workplace, and ultimately enhance job satisfaction and productivity.
AI in the Workplace
The rapid integration and easy access of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the workplace necessitates clear employment policies. There are several accessible (and often free) AI tools for work that assist employees in drafting emails, preparing summary notes, drafting work materials, and preparing presentations. However, an array of legal issues may arise when employees use AI tools to perform their job duties. While these tools may be useful in promoting efficiency, they also generate legal risks if used improperly—primarily confidentiality. A comprehensive AI policy should address AI usage guidelines (including clearly defining “AI usage,” listing permitted and prohibited uses, and implementing protocols for human oversight), ethical considerations, data privacy, and mandatory training. An effective AI policy can cultivate responsible innovation, build trust, and assist in a smooth transition into an AI-driven work environment.
Conclusion
Although employers typically update their employee handbooks either at the end or beginning of the calendar year, there is never a bad time to implement new policies that address significant issues in the workplace. These policies are only three examples of proactive steps an employer can take to improve their workplace culture and compliance with important laws.

Political Affiliation Discrimination: Know Your Rights

The employment attorneys at Katz Banks Kumin have observed an increased number of inquiries from individuals in both the public and private sector regarding employment protections based on political affiliation and activity.
The increased interest in this topic comes amid a highly charged political environment and the decision by the Trump Administration to terminate the employment of civil service employees across a wide array of government agencies. Additionally, many employees are unclear about their rights and obligations as their employers are retreating from commitments to corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in response to the Administration’s aggressive efforts to eradicate DEI initiatives.
These actions have left many employees in a state of confusion regarding their rights around these issues. Legal protections for discrimination based on political affiliation vary widely based on state law. Below is a broad overview of employment protections across the United States, but as these can vary even by local jurisdiction.
What is political affiliation discrimination?
Political affiliation discrimination is not uniformly defined across federal and state law. Generally, it refers to discrimination based on individual political beliefs or membership in a political group.
For example, the District of Columbia Human Rights Act prohibits all employers in the District from refusing to hire, terminating, or otherwise discriminating against any individual with respect to his or her “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” based on the individual’s political affiliation, which is defined as “the state of belonging to or endorsing a political party.” As described below, other jurisdictions that offer political affiliation protections may use different definitions.
Even in jurisdictions that explicitly prohibit political affiliation discrimination, some actions that may be motivated by a person’s political beliefs, such as damaging property or engaging in insurrection or other forms of criminal activity, are unlikely to constitute protected political expression.
What are the federal laws around political affiliation discrimination?
There are currently no federal protections for private sector employees from workplace discrimination based solely on political affiliation.
If you are a federal employee and you believe that you have been discriminated against because of your political affiliation, you may be entitled to some protections under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CRSA).
What are the state laws around political affiliation discrimination?
An analysis of state laws regarding political affiliation discrimination observed that protections between states vary widely, with some states offering no protection, while others offer robust protections of free speech and political affiliation in private employment. In addition to the information below, a useful resource to determine your state laws in this area can be found here.
Which jurisdictions do not have protections against political affiliation discrimination?

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Maryland (excluding some counties), Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin currently do not have any specific protections against political affiliation discrimination in private employment.

Which jurisdictions have political affiliation protections?
Various U.S. jurisdictions offer at least some protection for private employees’ political affiliation, but the laws vary widely in scope. For example, Louisiana provides some of the most robust protections for employees by prohibiting private employers from adopting policies, or attempting to control, direct, or influence the political affiliations or activities “of any nature or character” of its employees. (La. Stat. Ann. § 23:961). Other states have less restrictive laws, such as Kentucky, which more narrowly tailors its laws towards preventing employers from influencing or retaliating against an individual’s voting activity. Local and/or county ordinances may also apply in some instances.
Three of the jurisdictions in which the firm maintains offices – California, New York, and Washington, D.C. – are among those that provide protection for employees against political affiliation discrimination:

In California, employers are prohibited from “forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office” and “controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.” California Labor Code § 1101. Additionally, the law also stipulates that “No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” California Labor Code § 1102
In New York, employers and employment agencies may not to refuse to hire, employ, license, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual in compensation, promotion, or terms, conditions, privileges of employment because of the individual’s political activities outside of working hours, off the employer’s premises, and without the use of the employer’s equipment or other property. Y. Lab. Law § 201-d(1)(a)
In the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Human Rights Act prohibits all employers in the District from refusing to hire, terminating, or otherwise discriminating against any individual with respect to his or her “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” based on the individual’s political affiliation. DCHRA 2–1402.21

In total, the following jurisdictions have at least some political affiliation protections for private employees: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming, as well as Washington D.C.

EEOC Joins Forces with DOJ to Double Down on Opposition to DEI

Just days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stayed a preliminary injunction blocking executive orders that refer to the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion as “illegal DEI,” the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly announced new guidance with a stated purpose of “educating the public about unlawful discrimination related to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) in the workplace.”
EEOC and DOJ Guidance
On March 19, 2025, the EEOC and the DOJ announced the release of two technical assistance documents. One of these was a single-page document issued jointly by both agencies, titled What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work (the “Joint Document”). This Joint Document is also provided as a downloadable poster with a scannable QR code that directs users to the EEOC’s web page explaining how to file a Charge of Discrimination (“Charge”).
The EEOC also released What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work, a list of 11 questions and answers (the “Q&A”). Many of the answers in the Q&A address procedural questions that apply to any claim of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, including when and how to file a Charge. Within its explanations, the Q&A makes the following key points:
The EEOC Does Not Recognize “Reverse” Discrimination
As outlined in the Q&A, the EEOC emphasizes that the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) do not apply only to individuals who are part of a “‘minority group . . ., women, or some other subset of individuals[.]’” Rather, “Title VII’s protections apply equally to all workers” (Q&A 4).
Reflecting the position taken by the plaintiff in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court (as discussed briefly here), the EEOC states that “there is no such thing as ‘reverse’ discrimination; there is only discrimination.” Accordingly, the EEOC confirms that it “does not require a higher showing of proof for so-called ‘reverse’ discrimination claims.”
Note that the term “reverse discrimination” has been used in many cases, including Ames, and in EEO treatises to refer to claims where white or male or heterosexual employees allege discrimination by an employer, and courts in some federal circuits have held that such “majority” plaintiffs must show a heightened standard of proof— specifically, “background circumstances” to support that their employer is the “unusual” one that discriminates against majority group members. The future of this heightened standard of proof in the courts is the central issue of Ames, and the EEOC is now clearly rejecting it.
DEI Could Lead to Discriminatory Disparate Treatment
At Q&A 7, the EEOC explains that DEI-related disparate treatment can occur in all manner of terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including, but not limited to, the following:

“Access to or exclusion from training (including training characterized as leadership development programs)”;
“Access to mentoring, sponsorship, or workplace networking/networks”;
“Internships (including internships labeled as ‘fellowships’ or ‘summer associate’ programs)”;
“Selection for interviews” (including diverse slate programs); and
“Job duties or work assignments.”

As the Q&A notes, and as our colleagues explained here, a plaintiff need only show “some injury” or “some harm” in order to establish a Title VII violation under Muldrow v. St. Louis.
Affinity Groups Could Be Likened to Segregation
The EEOC uses Q&A 7 to warn that Employee Resource Groups, Business Resources Groups, or other affinity groups may constitute unlawful segregation if employers limit membership to those groups. Therefore, employers should provide training, mentoring, and workplace networking opportunities to workers of “all backgrounds.” The guidance emphasizes that employers cannot take employment action based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic because the employer has a business necessity or interest in “diversity.” Relatedly, client or customer preference for diversity is not a defense to race or color discrimination.
Q&A 9 offers a bottom line: “Title VII does not provide any ‘diversity interest’ exception to these rules.”
DEI Training Could Lead to a Hostile Work Environment Claim
Q&A 10 suggests that, in certain circumstances, “an employee may be able to plausibly allege or prove that a diversity or other DEI-related training created a hostile work environment by pleading or showing that the training was discriminatory in content, application, or context.” Interestingly, this advice cites to the EEOC’s amicus brief in Vavra v. Honeywell Int’l., Inc., a 2024 case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which a panel held that an employer did not violate Title VII when it terminated an employee who had refused to participate in DEI training. That brief not only cited to two cases where a plaintiff succeeded in demonstrating harassment by presenting evidence of how a DEI training created a hostile work environment, but also cited to three cases where the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that harassment occurred, concluding that “the mere fact that an employer requires employees to participate in an anti-discrimination training is not enough to show that the training falls into a category of conduct prohibited by Title VII.”
What Employers Should Do Now
It bears repeating that the law under Title VII has not changed, and preferential or otherwise discriminatory employment practices remain unlawful. Indeed, both the EEOC and the DOJ, in their identically worded press releases, acknowledge that “DEI is a broad term that is not defined” in Title VII.
Nevertheless, the release of the Joint Document and the Q&A, along with other recent EEOC actions, show that the federal administration is serious about the executive orders that called for the elimination of “illegal DEI” as a new enforcement priority, despite judicial criticism. Although the EEOC’s authority to investigate DEI initiatives has been questioned in certain circumstances, this recent guidance invites individuals and organizations to pursue DEI-related Charges with the agency.
Employers may want to consider how to balance the advantages of DEI programs against the heightened enforcement focus on such initiatives. We recommend the following initial steps:

Conduct an inventory of all current DEI programs and evaluate the programs against the Joint Document and the Q&A.
Determine whether eligibility for existing DEI programs can or should be amended, including whether participation should be open to all employees.
Consider altering or discontinuing any programs that give preference to individuals within any protected group.
Prepare a privileged, legal justification for the continuation of any DEI programs.

Beltway Buzz, March 21, 2025

The Beltway Buzz™ is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.

DEI EOs “Unblocked.” T. Scott Kelly and Zachary V. Zagger have the details on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that will allow the federal government to enforce its DEI-related executive orders (EO) (EO 14151 and EO 14173) while a decision on the merits awaits appeal. This means that the federal government can once again, for example, require federal contractors to certify that they do not operate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that violate federal antidiscrimination laws. It also means that the U.S. attorney general can pursue legal challenges to private-sector DEI programs “that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.” Other legal challenges to the DEI executive orders are still pending.
EEOC Issues Technical Assistance on DEI. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) this week issued two technical assistance documents, “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination At Work” and “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related To DEI At Work.” The first document, in particular, cautions employers that an “initiative, policy, program, or practice may be unlawful if it involves an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by race, sex, or another protected characteristic.” The document then provides examples of DEI-related workplace policies and practices that the EEOC believes may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to discrimination in hiring, firing, and compensation, the document notes that job duties, access to training, mentorship programs, and employee resource groups should also not be motivated in whole or in part on race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Nonnie L. Shivers has the specifics.
Secretary of State Asserts Control Over Immigration Rulemaking Process. On March 14, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio published a notice in the Federal Register that will likely have a significant impact on the Trump administration’s immigration-related rulemaking protocols. In the notice, Secretary Rubio states that his primary foreign affairs duty is “to protect the people of the United States from any threats originating from foreign actors or from foreign soil” which includes policies related to the “protection and travel of U.S. citizens overseas, visa operations and visa issuance.” Rubio concludes with the following:
I hereby determine that all efforts, conducted by any agency of the federal government, to control the status, entry, and exit of people, and the transfer of goods, services, data, technology, and other items across the borders of the United States, constitute a foreign affairs function of the United States under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, 554. (Emphasis added.)

The “foreign affairs” exemption in the Administrative Procedure Act allows the federal government to avoid the normal notice and comment requirements of the rulemaking process. The U.S. Department of State has claimed this exemption regularly over the years, usually when going through the standard rulemaking process would result in some undesirable international consequence. Moreover, during Donald Trump’s first presidency, the administration also claimed this exemption relating to certain policy changes but was rejected by at least two federal courts. Secretary Rubio’s notice, at least on its face, would try to expand the use of this exemption beyond the State Department and extend it to other agencies involved in immigration rulemaking processes, such as the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Democratic FTC Commissioners Fired. This week, President Trump fired Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the two remaining Democratic commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson and fellow Republican Melissa Holyoak remain on the Commission, which can still bring cases, even with three vacant commissioner seats. Like the firings of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and EEOC commissioners Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels, the removal of Bedoya and Slaughter is a further example of the administration’s efforts to assert executive branch authority over federal agency commissions and boards.
Trump Rescinds More Biden-Era EOs. On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order entitled, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” which rescinds eighteen executive orders, memoranda, and determinations issued by President Joe Biden. The rescinded EOs relating to employment policy are as follows:

“Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors” (EO 14026, April 27, 2021). This EO set the minimum wage applicable to covered federal contractor employees at $17.75 per hour as of the beginning of this year (pursuant to a provision that provides for annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index). However, President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13658, which also increases the minimum wage for covered contractors, remains in place. While still unclear at this time, federal minimum wage requirements could be $7.25 per hour or $13.30 per hour, depending on whether the contract was covered under the Biden or Obama EO. Clarification from the DOL on this would be helpful.
“Advancing Worker Empowerment, Rights, and High Labor Standards Globally” (Presidential Memorandum, November 16, 2023). This memorandum encouraged the promotion of workers’ rights (e.g., collective bargaining, safe workplaces, wage and hour protections, and prohibiting forced labor ) as they related to the United States’ “foreign, international development, trade, climate, and global economic policy priorities.”
“Scaling and Expanding the Use of Registered Apprenticeships in Industries and the Federal Government and Promoting Labor-Management Forums” (EO 14119, March 6, 2024 ). This EO directed federal agencies to promote opportunities to contract with employers that participated in union-supported registered apprenticeship programs.
“Investing in America and Investing in American Workers” (EO 14126, September 6, 2024). This EO encouraged federal agencies to include certain labor and employment standards in federal grants and contracts. This came to be known colloquially as the “Good Jobs” executive order.

FMCS on the Brink. Also, on March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order entitled, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” that “continues the reduction in the elements of the Federal bureaucracy that the President has determined are unnecessary.” The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is one of seven agencies ordered to eliminate its “non-statutory components and functions … to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.” Pursuant to the EO, the FMCS (as well as the other agencies listed) must “submit a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget confirming full compliance with this order and explaining which components or functions of the governmental entity, if any, are statutorily required and to what extent” by March 21, 2025. The FMCS homepage currently displays the following message: “We are reviewing recent Executive Orders for immediate implementation. The requirements outlined in these orders may affect some services or information currently provided on this website.”
House Committee Gets Its Start. On March 21, 1867, the U.S. House of Representatives did something that is near and dear to our hearts here at the Buzz: it established the Committee on Education and Labor. Following the Civil War, Congress created the committee to address issues arising from the country’s rapid industrial growth. In 1883, the committee was divided into two separate committees, the Committee on Education and the Committee on Labor. After several decades, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 joined the two committees together again as the Committee on Education and Labor. The committee has existed in that form ever since, though beginning in 1995, the name has been tweaked depending on the party in the majority. When Democrats are in the House majority, it is called the “Committee on Education and Labor.” When Republicans are in the House majority, the committee is referred to as the “Committee on Education and the Workforce.”

EEOC and DOJ Clarify the Federal Government’s Enforcement Priorities as to DEI-Related Workplace Discrimination

On 19 March 2025, the US Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) issued two technical assistance documents clarifying what workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and practices the federal agencies may consider to be “discriminatory.” Importantly, the federal government also has confirmed that DEI initiatives, policies, programs, or practices can lawfully exist. While the technical assistance documents are not binding, they serve as interpretive guidelines for enforcement agents and are expressly intended to “increase public awareness of how existing rules apply to DEI programs.”1
Clarifying Meaning of DEI-Related Workplace Discrimination
Following multiple executive orders (EOs) from President Donald Trump pertaining to DEI, employers have awaited agency guidance to answer key questions regarding the scope and meaning of “illegal DEI”—an undefined concept in the EOs that has been the subject of multiple legal challenges.2 Initial guidance now has been provided with the issuance by the EEOC and the DOJ of a one-page technical assistance document, “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work” and a longer question-and-answer technical assistance document, “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work” (Q&A) (together, Technical Assistance Documents).
In the publication titled, “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” the EEOC provides information to individuals in the United States who believe they have “experienced discrimination related to DEI at work” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Employees, interns, applicants, and training or apprenticeship program participants who believe their rights have been violated under Title VII by private sector employers must exhaust their administrative remedies under Title VII by filing charges of discrimination with the EEOC.3 The publication specifically identifies the unlawful use of “quotas” and “balancing” of an employer’s workforce as examples of potential “DEI-related discrimination.” Further, it notes that individuals may have colorable hostile work environment claims related to DEI training if such training becomes “so frequent or severe that a reasonable person would consider it intimidating, hostile, or abusive.” The publication also notes that individuals may engage in legally protected conduct pursuant to Title VII if they are “objecting to or opposing discrimination related to DEI” or engaging in “reasonable opposition to a DEI training.” However, the EEOC did not provide further details as to the type or content of such trainings that may be unlawful.
In the Q&A, the EEOC confirms that DEI-related initiatives, policies, programs, and practices are lawful under Title VII as long as they do not involve “taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.” The Q&A further emphasizes that Title VII’s protections apply to all workers, not only individuals who are part of a “minority group,” “diverse,” or “historically underrepresented group.” Moreover, workers or applicants not otherwise part of a minority group are subject to the same burden of proof as those in minority groups when asserting unlawful workplace discrimination claims. The Q&A also notes that, to allege a colorable claim of discrimination, workers only need to show “some injury” or “some harm” affecting their “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment.4
According to the EEOC in the Q&A, “DEI-related disparate treatment” may include disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of employment (e.g., hiring, firing, work assignments, promotion, demotion, compensation, and fringe benefits), as well as disparate treatment in:

Access to training (including leadership development programs);
Access to mentoring, sponsorship, or workplace networking/networks;
Internships/fellowships; and
Selection for interviews, including placement or exclusion from a candidate “slate” or pool.

In line with prior statements by the EEOC’s Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, addressing “race-restricted internships” and “race-restricted mentoring,”5 the Q&A advises employers to offer “training and mentoring that provides workers of all backgrounds the opportunity, skill, experience, and information necessary to perform well, and to ascend to upper-level jobs.” It also notes that employees must ensure that “employees of all backgrounds… have “equal access to workplace networks.”
The EEOC further cautions in the Q&A that an employer cannot justify taking an employment action based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic because the employer has a business necessity or interest in “diversity,” which includes client or customer preferences. The Q&A clarifies and reaffirms, however, that employers may raise a “bona fide occupational qualification” as an affirmative defense in very limited circumstances to excuse hiring or classifying employees based on religion, sex, or national origin.
The EEOC notes that affinity groups, sometimes called employee resource groups or (ERGs), may be problematic if they are not open to everyone or limit terms and conditions of employment to only certain members with certain protected characteristics. The EEOC underscores that Title VII also prohibits employers from “limiting, segregating, or classifying employees or applicants based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in a way that affects their status or deprives them of employment opportunities.” This prohibition applies to all “employee activities which are employer-sponsored (including by making available company time, facilities, or premises, and other forms of official or unofficial encouragement or participation), such as employee clubs or groups.”
Key Takeaways for Employers
The Technical Assistance Documents do not materially alter the compliance landscape for employers or resolve all the unanswered questions regarding the permissible scope of private sector DEI programs. Instead, the Technical Assistance Documents provide some useful guidance to employers regarding the Trump administration’s interpretation of lawful and unlawful DEI initiatives, policies, programs, and practices and reflect the agencies’ enforcement priorities.
As private employers prepare for increased DEI-related enforcement activity, they should consider, with assistance of counsel:

Conducting internal audits of existing DEI initiatives, policies, programs, and practices, especially as related to recruitment, mentorship/sponsorship, training, and hiring;
Restructuring or ending DEI internship and career development programs, including mentorship and networking programs, if such programs have eligibility criteria—as written or as applied—based on protected characteristics;
Suspending “diverse slate” hiring practices and focusing instead on widescale recruiting to attract a large pool of applicants; and
Reviewing the purpose and impact of employer-sponsored ERGs and ensuring that such groups are inclusive and open to everyone.

Conclusion
Employers in the United States should bear in mind that various state and local law requirements also impact the nature and content of many of their DEI-related initiatives, policies, programs, and practices. As the Technical Assistance Documents emphasize that Title VII’s protections apply to all workers, employers must ensure that they continue to comply with their nondiscrimination obligations to all personnel. Employers should work with counsel to ensure hiring and retention practices, equal employment opportunity policies, and DEI initiatives, policies, programs, and practices comply with applicable law in light of the updated enforcement guidance to reduce the risk of government investigation while maintaining compliance with applicable law.
Footnotes

1 Press Release, (emphasis added) EEOC and Justice Department Warn Against Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination, EEOC (Mar. 19, 2025), https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-and-justice-department-warn-against-unlawful-dei-related-discrimination.
2 See K&L Gates legal alerts Uncharted Waters: Employers Brace for Significant and Unprecedented Changes to Employment Law Enforcement Under New Administration and What Is “Illegal DEI?” Key Takeaways for Employers in Light of Litigation and Guidance Issued by the Federal and State Governments.
3 The EEOC enforces Title VII against private sector employers with 15 or more employees, and the DOJ enforces the statute against state and local government employers.
4 Citing the Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri,601 U.S. –, 144 S. Ct. 967, 974 (2024).
5 Andrea R. Lucas, The Future of DEI, Disparate Impact, and EO 11246 after Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, EEOC (May 22, 2024), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Commissioner_Lucas_Remarks_-_76th_NYU_Annual_L%26E_Conference.pdf.

The Government Contractor: False Claims Act Liability Based On A DEI Program? Let’s Think It Through

One of the more attention-grabbing aspects of Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” is the specter of False Claims Act liability for federal contractors based on their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Many workplace DEI programs have been viewed as a complement to federal anti-discrimination law—a tool for reducing the risk of discrimination lawsuits. The new administration, however, views DEI programs as a potential source of discrimination. EO 14173 proclaims that “critical and influential institutions of American society … have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) that can violate the civil- rights laws of this Nation.” To counteract this potential “illegal” use of DEI programs, the Trump administration is leveraging the FCA, a powerful anti-fraud statute, to enforce its policy within the Federal Government contractor community.
We discuss below the framework of the FCA, how it might apply to federal contractor DEI programs under the administration’s orders, and potential hurdles the Government may face in pursuing FCA claims based on a contractor’s allegedly illegal DEI program. We recommend steps contractors can take to mitigate potential FCA risks when evaluating their own DEI programs.
To read the full article, please click here.

Executive Order to Close the Department of Education: What It Means for Your School

On March 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order (“EO”) titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” directing the Secretary of Education to undertake all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education (“Department”).
What the EO Says
Citing historically low reading and math scores, the EO asserts that the federal bureaucracy has not served students, teachers, or families effectively, and aims to return decision-making power to those closest to the educational process—“States and local communities.”
The EO mandates that existing services, programs, and benefits—such as student loans, Title I funding, and special education support—continue without interruption during this transition, though it provides no details for achieving this continuity. In addition, the EO targets “illegal discrimination” in DEI and so-called “gender ideology” programs, potentially impacting school funding and compliance.
Notably, the EO recognizes its own legal boundaries: the Department, established by Congress in 1979 under the Department of Education Organization Act, cannot be unilaterally eliminated by the President. Any bill to shut down the Department requires 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster—a challenging threshold given the current political landscape on Capitol Hill. And legal challenges are likely to be filed. These lawsuits could delay implementation or reshape the order’s trajectory.
What This Means for Your School and Next Steps to Consider
For local school districts and charter schools, this EO introduces a range of practical and strategic considerations. Federal funding currently constitutes about 14 percent of public school budgets, primarily through programs like Title I, which supports schools in low-income areas, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), which ensures resources for students with disabilities. While the order does not immediately terminate these funds, a successful closure of the Department could lead to their disruption or reallocation. Districts in distressed regions may face additional challenges in maintaining current levels of service without federal support. Charter schools may have to grapple with the potential loss of federal Charter School Program grants (“CSP”), which may constrain their ability to expand or sustain operations.
Additionally, the EO includes a mandate to terminate any program or activity receiving federal assistance that is deemed to engage in “illegal discrimination” under described terms like “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or programs promoting “gender ideology.” For districts and charter schools, this could mean increased scrutiny of existing DEI programs, staff training, or curriculum elements related to gender identity, potentially requiring adjustments to maintain eligibility for federal funding during the transition. Non-compliance could risk funding cuts or legal challenges from federal authorities, while compliance might spark local backlash or litigation from stakeholders who support such programs, placing schools in a delicate balancing act.
The order also raises questions about civil rights enforcement, currently managed by the Department’s Office of Civil Rights. If this function dissolves or transfers, it could lead to an increase in private civil litigation. Additionally, the Department’s management of a $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio may move to another federal entity, such as the Treasury Department. This could affect districts offering dual-enrollment programs or employing staff eligible for loan forgiveness under programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
The broader implications of the policy shift represented by the EO may be significant. To prepare, it may be prudent for districts and charter schools to evaluate their dependence on federal programs like Title I, IDEA, and CSP grants. Engaging with your local ISD and with MDE to understand contingency plans may also be appropriate, as well as strengthening internal policies to address potential shifts in civil rights enforcement can help mitigate legal risks in an uncertain regulatory environment.