ABOUT PROJECT FORWARD

Led by BRIDGE, Project FORWARD is a cross-industry initiative, designed to chart our collective path forward and meet the current moment head-on. In partnership with top experts in academia, law and our board members, we are dedicated to equipping, educating, and empowering leaders in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), marketing, and business to continue to drive inclusive innovation and sustainable growth.

 

Every Friday, Project FORWARD provides critical updates on executive orders (EO) and legislative developments, featuring legal interpretations from Stacy Hawkins, Esq., Diversity & Employment Practices Consultant and Rutgers Professor of Law, and Jessica Golden Cortes, Partner, Labor + Employment Group, Davis+Gilbert LLP. We will also include the BRIDGE POV and tangible actions to consider.*

 

We encourage our community to remain informed and proactive. If you have questions or insights you’d like to share, please email [email protected].

 

FOR PAST ISSUES OF PROJECT FORWARD WEEKLY GUIDANCE PLEASE VISIT HERE.

 

*These Project FORWARD updates should not be construed as legal advice or counsel. They are for educational and instructive purposes only, to aid our understanding about how best to actively continue our mission in response to this moment. 

UPDATE ON PREVIOUSLY ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS

For continued reference these are the EOs targeting DEI and LGBTQ+ protections that have been issued:

• Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing: Executive Order # 14151
• Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity: Executive Order # 14173
• Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government: Executive Order #14168

 

We will continue to monitor activities that relate to these EOs either directly or indirectly.

WALMART SHAREHOLDERS REJECT ANTI-DEI PROPOSAL; BECOMES 20TH MAJOR CORPORATION TO UPHOLD DEI PROGRAMS

OVERVIEW

With Walmart’s shareholder vote on June 5, twenty major companies have now rejected anti-DEI proposals in 2025.

 

These proposals—largely led by political groups—continue to be defeated by wide margins, reinforcing that investors view inclusion as aligned with business value, not in conflict with it.

 

WALMART
On Thursday, June 5, Walmart shareholders overwhelmingly rejected an anti-DEI proposal put forth by the conservative group, National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR). This marks the 20th major corporation in 2025 to uphold its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the face of coordinated political pressure.

 

The proposal, which criticized Walmart’s DEI initiatives, was met with strong opposition from the company’s board. In its proxy statement, Walmart emphasized the importance of a diverse and inclusive workplace, stating, “We believe that a company culture where associates feel welcome and valued helps us attract and retain the talent that drives our business.”  

 

While Walmart CEO Doug McMillon did not issue a direct statement regarding the vote, the company’s leadership has previously affirmed its commitment to fostering a sense of belonging among associates and customers. In a statement earlier this year, Walmart noted, “We are focused on creating a Walmart for everyone and will continue to reinforce this commitment through our actions.”  
 

BRIDGE POV

The outcome at Walmart further reinforces what we’ve seen across sectors: when inclusion is challenged, shareholder support remains strong.

 

These proposals are not failing quietly—they’re being rejected decisively. The pattern is clear: investors continue to back companies that approach DEI as a strategic business function, not a political liability.

 

The private sector doesn’t need to overcorrect. It needs to stay disciplined. With thoughtful governance, documented rationale, and alignment to performance, DEI remains both defensible and durable.

 

1. Treat Shareholder Support as Strategic Cover: The data is in your favor. Use recent votes as evidence that inclusion is not a fringe value—it’s a majority-backed business strategy
2. Continue to Ground DEI in Business Value: Shareholders are backing DEI when it’s linked to growth, innovation, and talent. Make sure your programs are positioned accordingly in public filings and internal strategy
3. Monitor and Prepare for Future Proxy Cycles: Expect similar proposals to resurface. Align with legal counsel and investor relations to scenario-plan your positioning in advance of the 2026 season

EEOC ANNOUNCES INVESTIGATION INTO HARVARD’S FACULTY HIRING PRACTICES

• EEOC Commissioner's Charge Against Harvard University 

 

OVERVIEW

The EEOC has opened a formal investigation into Harvard University’s faculty hiring practices, citing data showing that the percentage of white male faculty declined from 59% in 2013 to 49% in 2023. 

 

The charge alleges that these “trends” demonstrate a “pattern and practice” of discrimination against white males, despite no specific hiring policy being identified.  

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

While the charge alleges that Harvard is engaging in disparate treatment—intentional discrimination against white males—the evidence presented relies almost entirely on statistical “trends” and general references to diversity hiring programs. That aligns more closely with a disparate impact theory of liability, which examines whether facially neutral policies result in disproportionate outcomes.

 

As noted in Issue 10, on April 23, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” This order aimed to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in federal anti-discrimination enforcement to the maximum extent permitted by law. The executive order claims that this doctrine unfairly presumes discrimination based on statistical disparities alone—compelling institutions to consider race or protected characteristics to avoid liability.

 

There is a clear irony in the Harvard charge: the very same political forces working to eliminate disparate impact liability are now effectively relying on it to claim reverse discrimination.  In order to succeed in proving that Harvard is engaged in disparate treatment towards white males in faculty hiring, the EEOC would need to demonstrate that Harvard’s individual hiring decisions, or general diversity programs, expressly hire individuals based on their race or ethnicity. 

 

In the absence of such direct proof of targeted discrimination, at most the statistical data proves disparate impact, which the EEOC is barred from litigating under the Executive Order.
 

BRIDGE POV

This is not just about Harvard. It’s about the growing effort to use progress itself as evidence of discrimination.

 

There’s a deep irony at play: the same forces working to eliminate disparate impact liability are now leaning on that very theory to claim reverse discrimination.  This underscores what we've said from the beginning—this isn’t a legal or moral argument, it’s a political and ideological one.

 

But here’s what matters: demographic change is not discrimination. Companies and institutions committed to inclusion, when grounded in lawful, mission-aligned practices, remain on solid ground.

 

1. Clarify the Business Rationale Behind Your Inclusion Strategy: Make sure your hiring, advancement, and culture-building efforts are grounded in clear business needs—whether that’s attracting top talent, driving innovation, or reflecting the communities you serve.
2. Review Language in DEI Communications and Programs: Ensure there’s no language—internal or external—that implies hiring or advancement decisions are based solely on race or other protected characteristics. Intentionality and neutrality must be evident.
3. Stay Consistent: Do not abandon progress to avoid visibility. Stay the course, but do it smarter: be precise, be documented, and be aligned with your values and your risk posture.

EEOC ACTING CHAIR ANDREA LUCAS ISSUES MEMORANDUM ON “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” IN THE EEO COMPLAINT PROCESS

• Restoring and Protecting the Presumption of Innocence in the EEO Complaint Process   
• Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues  

 

OVERVIEW

EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas has issued a formal memorandum titled “Restoring and Protecting the Presumption of Innocence in the EEO Complaint Process.”

 

The memo, addressed to federal agency heads, directs a review of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs to ensure neutrality for both complainants and those accused. It states that no adverse employment action—such as delaying or withholding promotions—should be taken against an employee solely for being the subject of a complaint, absent a substantive finding based on objective and credible evidence.

 

The memo specifically criticizes a former Department of Defense policy that paused promotion eligibility for employees under investigation, praising the department for discontinuing the practice and urging other agencies to follow suit.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Under Title VII, federal law prohibits retaliation against employees who engage in “protected activity”—which includes filing a complaint, opposing discrimination, or participating in an investigation. Traditionally, this protection has applied to complainants and supporting witnesses.

 

In a notable shift, this EEOC memorandum signals that an accused individual’s participation in an investigation of their own conduct may also be considered protected activity. This is a novel interpretation—not yet codified in EEOC guidance.

 

If extended to private employers, this interpretation could arguably restrict an organization’s ability to take precautionary or administrative steps during an open investigation, such as adjusting reporting lines, placing an employee on leave, or modifying duties—actions often taken to prevent further alleged misconduct or protect workplace safety. Under this memo’s reasoning, such actions could potentially be viewed as retaliatory, even in the absence of a finding of wrongdoing.

 

It’s important to note that this memorandum does not change existing EEOC guidance or federal law. For now, it reflects a developing position—not binding precedent. Employers should continue to consult legal counsel to ensure compliance with current legal standards and understand how future court rulings may shape this evolving definition of “protected activity.”

 

BRIDGE POV 

This memo marks a strategic shift in how the EEOC may approach investigations—not just protecting complainants, but potentially extending legal protections to the accused. While the intent may be to ensure fairness, the unintended consequence could be greater ambiguity and risk for employers trying to maintain safe, respectful workplaces during an active investigation.

 

The underlying legal doctrine hasn’t changed—but the signal is clear: the EEOC is actively reframing enforcement priorities and expanding its interpretations in ways that could directly impact how companies respond to complaints.

 

This moment requires balance: protect all parties involved while ensuring your internal processes remain compliant, fair, and well-documented. Overcorrection in either direction—inaction or preemptive discipline—can create exposure. What matters now is discipline, transparency, and clear legal guidance.

 

1. Review and Clarify Your Investigation Protocols: Ensure your policies outline how complaints are handled—step by step—and that those policies are applied consistently, regardless of the individuals involved. Clarity and consistency are your strongest defenses.
2. Consult Legal Counsel Before Taking Interim Action: Before reassigning, suspending, or placing an employee on leave pending investigation, ensure there is a documented rationale rooted in business necessity or workplace safety—not assumption. Context matters.
3. Train Managers on Retaliation Risk—From All Angles: Update training to reflect that retaliation protections may be interpreted broadly. Managers must understand the full scope of potential exposure—not just in defending against complaints, but in how they treat those accused while an investigation is ongoing.

UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT: TITLE VII PROTECTIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL EMPLOYEES

• Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services 

 

OVERVIEW

On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9–0 in Muldrow v. St. Louis, siding with Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames alleged that she was denied a promotion based on her sex and sexual orientation, both protected characteristics under Title VII.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has clarified that Title VII’s anti-discrimination protections apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether they are members of a minority or majority group. The case effectively dismantles the long-standing “background circumstances” requirement previously applied to majority-group plaintiffs.

 

That standard—first introduced in the 1993 case St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks—required majority-group plaintiffs to provide additional evidence suggesting that their employer was biased against their group, creating a higher evidentiary burden than that required of historically marginalized individuals. Critics have long argued that the rule was inconsistent with the core purpose of Title VII: to ensure equal protection from discrimination in the workplace.

 

Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated: “Title VII’s protections against discrimination apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group. The imposition of a heightened burden of proof on majority-group plaintiffs is inconsistent with the statute’s text and its underlying principle of equal protection under the law.”

 

This decision doesn’t expand or contract protections—it reinforces a uniform legal standard, and removes a procedural hurdle that previously created inconsistency in how claims were assessed based on the identity of the complainant.

 

BRIDGE POV 

This ruling may appear neutral on its face—but it lands in a highly politicized context.

By eliminating the “background circumstances” standard, the Court has made it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims—without addressing the ongoing structural barriers that underrepresented communities continue to face. 

 

While the ultimate burden of proof in these cases remains high, this decision fits within a broader political effort to portray civil rights protections as preferential treatment, and to recast equity as a threat to fairness.

 

While the Court’s 9–0 decision focused narrowly on legal consistency under Title VII, the concurrence by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch reveals the deeper motive: a sustained campaign to discredit DEI. Their language—citing briefs that call DEI an “obsession” that causes “overt discrimination” against majority groups—signals hostility toward the very initiatives designed to correct long-standing inequities.

 

By flattening the playing field in theory, while ignoring the disparities that still define it in practice is an attempt to dismantle the protections that make equity possible. This stands in direct conflict with the spirit and purpose of Title VII.

 

1. Reaffirm Your Commitment to Equity in Principle and Practice: Legal consistency does not equal lived equity. Use this moment to clarify how your inclusion strategy addresses persistent disparities—not just diversity metrics. Recenter your language on fairness, opportunity, and long-term business value.
2. Ensure Your DEI Programs Are Legally Grounded and Mission-Aligned: Audit your initiatives with legal counsel to confirm they comply with Title VII, while remaining aligned with your company’s core values. Be prepared to defend both the legality and business rationale of your programs.
3. Prepare for Broader Legal and Political Challenges to DEI: This decision may be a signal flare. Expect future cases, legislation, and commentary aimed at weakening civil rights protections under the guise of “fairness.”  Build internal alignment now across Legal, HR, DEI, and Communications to respond proactively—not reactively.

LEGAL PROFESSION ACTS TO DEFEND RULE OF LAW

• General Counsel 'No Longer Trust' Biglaw  

 

OVERVIEW

As previously reported in Issues 8, 12, and 13, the legal community continues to organize in direct response to a wave of Executive Orders issued by the Trump Administration that many view as unconstitutional and corrosive to democratic norms.

 

Two organized coalitions have emerged—General Counsel United (500+ members) and Law Firm Partners United (700+ members)—both formed to defend the rule of law and to oppose actions by the Trump Administration and cooperating law firms seen as enabling these overreaches.

 

The movement is not just symbolic. Some general counsel have reallocated legal work away from firms that negotiated settlements with the Trump Administration in order to avoid being targeted. In parallel, several law firm partners have resigned in protest from firms that settled, choosing to stand in alignment with constitutional values over client appeasement.

 

BRIDGE POV 

This is a moment of moral clarity within the legal profession—and it should serve as a cue for all sectors. When laws are bent to serve power, the integrity of the legal system depends on those willing to say no.

 

These coalitions are not operating from ideology—they’re operating from principle. The decision to move business away from firms that compromised in the face of unconstitutional pressure isn’t performative. It’s a stand for legal independence, professional ethics, and democratic norms.

 

For business leaders, the message is clear: alignment with constitutional values is not a political act—it’s a leadership imperative. Those who partner with integrity will be on the right side of both history and stability. Those who don’t may find their risk profile increasing—not just reputationally, but legally.

 

1. Reassess Legal Partnerships Through a Values Lens: Work with law firms that not only provide strong legal counsel but also uphold constitutional principles and institutional independence. Ask how your legal partners are responding to current threats to the rule of law—and whether they’ve taken public or private stances.
2. Recognize Legal Integrity as a Business Risk Indicator: Settling to avoid political targeting may offer short-term protection, but it creates long-term exposure. Companies that align with firms unwilling to defend constitutional norms may face increasing reputational and stakeholder scrutiny.
3. Engage Your GC in Governance Strategy, Not Just Risk Management: Your general counsel is more than a legal gatekeeper—they’re a strategic partner in protecting institutional values. Bring them into broader governance discussions around political neutrality, executive overreach, and reputational defense.

COMMUNITY EVENTS

BRIDGE invites everyone to join for our monthly Community Calls which take place on the last Thursday of every month, gathering DEI marketing, and business leaders committed to driving systemic change within our organizations and the industry at large.

 

Our next call is Thursday, June 26th from 12-1p ET.

 

Pride is not just about celebration. It’s about visibility, safety, and the fundamental right to exist without fear. This year, with LGBTQ+ rights under coordinated attack, it is only fitting that our June call will honor Pride month. Join us as we discuss the complexities this population faces and how we can support them.