July 11, 2025 - Issue #20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
PREVIOUSLY ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS
|
For continued reference these are the EOs targeting DEI and
LGBTQ+ protections that have been issued:
We will continue to monitor activities that relate to these
EOs either directly or indirectly.
|
|
|
BUDGET BILL DEFUNDS OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
PROGRAMS
|
OVERVIEW
On July 4, Trump signed the latest federal Budget Bill, which
includes
the defunding of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs (OFCCP).
The OFCCP was
established under a 1965 Executive Order signed during the
Kennedy/Johnson era. It was tasked with enforcing
nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements for federal
contractors.
Earlier this year, the
Executive Order Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring
Merit-Based Opportunity
revoked that authority. In May, the Department of Labor implemented
significant staffing cuts at OFCCP, reducing personnel by
approximately 90% and leaving around 50 employees nationwide.
With the agency now defunded, it is expected to close. Any remaining responsibilities—such as oversight of federal
mandates related to the hiring of disabled veterans—will be
reassigned to another office within the Department of Labor.
LEGAL INTERPRETATION
The defunding of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs (OFCCP) removes the federal government’s primary
mechanism for enforcing nondiscrimination and affirmative action
obligations among federal contractors.
Historically, OFCCP operated under the authority of Executive Order
11246, issued during the Kennedy/Johnson era, along with Section 503
of the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment
Assistance Act (VEVRAA). With the recent Executive Order
Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based
Opportunity,
the executive authority supporting these obligations—particularly
those tied to affirmative action—has been revoked.
While the executive order removes the foundation for OFCCP’s core
activities under Executive Order 11246,
not all compliance obligations are eliminated. Statutory requirements, such as those under Section 503 and VEVRAA,
remain in force. However, without OFCCP in place to enforce them,
those responsibilities are expected to be reassigned to another
component within the Department of Labor.
No formal announcement has been made, but potential receiving
agencies include the Wage and Hour Division or the Office of
Disability Employment Policy.
In the near term,
contractors should anticipate a transition period with limited
regulatory guidance. Until further notice, enforcement activity such as compliance
reviews, audits, and investigations is expected to pause.
Contractors currently under review will likely receive closure
letters or reassignment notifications. Routine reporting
requirements may be revised, suspended, or discontinued depending on
forthcoming direction from the Department of Labor.
This shift introduces significant uncertainty for federal
contractors. While some legal obligations remain, the absence of a
dedicated enforcement body and the withdrawal of affirmative
action mandates under executive authority mean compliance
expectations are in flux. Until formal guidance is issued, legal and compliance teams should
monitor agency announcements closely and prepare for adjustments to
internal policies, reporting protocols, and diversity program
structures.
BRIDGE POV
With the defunding of the OFCCP and rollback of executive authority
on affirmative action, federal contractors are entering a new
compliance environment—one defined more by legal uncertainty than regulatory clarity. While some mandates remain in statute, the
absence of an active enforcement agency marks a material shift in
oversight. For leaders managing federal contracts, workforce compliance, and
ESG commitments, this moment calls for a recalibration of risk
posture, documentation practices, and public positioning.
The dissolution of OFCCP removes routine compliance reviews and
systemic audit risk,
but it does not eliminate reputational, legal, or operational
exposure related to workplace equity and nondiscrimination. Contractor obligations may now be shaped less by prescriptive
enforcement and more by litigation trends, stakeholder scrutiny, and
procurement discretion. In this evolving environment,
companies that rely on federal contracts will need to assess how
they manage compliance without a centralized federal
intermediary—and how they continue to meet workforce equity goals
amid changing expectations.
-
Conduct a Compliance Mapping Exercise: With the
OFCCP no longer operating, compliance teams should re-map
obligations under remaining legal authorities—particularly Section
503 and VEVRAA—to identify what remains enforceable by statute and
what may be phased out. Internal audits, hiring benchmarks, and
documentation protocols should be reviewed to determine which
elements are legally necessary, which are risk mitigation best
practices, and which may be sunset.
-
Reassess Affirmative Action Plans (AAPs): Affirmative Action Plans have historically been required for
federal contractors under OFCCP oversight. In light of recent
changes, organizations should evaluate whether to maintain these
plans voluntarily. For many, continuing AAPs may serve broader
talent, DEI, or ESG objectives—even if no longer mandated.
Decisions should be documented and aligned with both legal advice
and business values.
-
Monitor Procurement Shifts and Agency Guidance: While enforcement will no longer come through OFCCP, procurement
officials may still consider workforce practices when awarding
contracts. Stay attuned to Department of Labor guidance, RFP
language, and agency-specific compliance expectations. Ensure that
legal, HR, and business development functions are aligned around
how equity-related commitments are communicated and
operationalized in future bids.
|
|
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR SUSMAN GODFREY; TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPEALS
PERKINS COIE DECISION
|
OVERVIEW
As covered in earlier issues of Project FORWARD (issues 6, 8, and
12),
the administration issued a series of Executive Orders targeting
certain law firms viewed as politically adversarial—particularly those involved in litigation or public statements
related to diversity, voting rights, or
representation of political opponents.
In June, Susman Godfrey became the fourth and final firm to
obtain a favorable ruling from a federal district court in
Washington, D.C.
The court issued a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the
Executive Order directed at the firm.
As with prior rulings in favor of Perkins Coie, Jenner &
Block, and WilmerHale, the court found that the Executive Order
violated the First Amendment by retaliating against the firm for
its protected speech and associations, including public statements
supporting diversity initiatives.
While the cases involving Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman
Godfrey have concluded at the district court level with no
indication of further appeal,
the administration has filed an appeal in the Perkins Coie
matter. The appeal is now pending before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
and is expected
to address questions of executive authority, viewpoint
discrimination, and limits on government retaliation against
federal contractors and grantees based on expressive
activity.
The outcome of the appeal may set broader precedent for how far the
federal government can go in conditioning eligibility for contracts
or grants based on speech, advocacy, or political affiliation.
LEGAL INTERPRETATION
The June 27, 2025 judgment in favor of Susman Godfrey marked the
final decision issued by the D.C. federal district court in a series
of related lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s Executive
Orders against four law firms. Just three days later, on June 30,
2025—and just before the deadline to appeal—the Administration filed
a notice of appeal in the first case, involving Perkins Coie. That
case had resulted in a permanent injunction on May 2, 2025, blocking
enforcement of the Executive Order against the firm.
To date, no appellate briefs have been filed, and the
Administration has not yet outlined its legal rationale for
seeking to overturn the district court’s judgment.
It also remains unclear whether the Administration intends to appeal
the rulings in the three remaining cases—those involving Jenner
& Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. Under federal
procedure, the Administration has sixty days from the entry of each
judgment to file a notice of appeal.
Without clarity on the legal basis for the appeal, it is
premature to evaluate the administration’s likelihood of
success
in the Perkins Coie case. However, recently published data offers
context.
As of this term, the Trump Administration has prevailed in only 5
of 87 cases (5.7%) at the district court level. That success rate
rises to 31.8% at the appellate level (7 out of 22 cases), and
significantly increases to 93.7% at the Supreme Court, where it
has won 15 out of 16 cases. These figures suggest that while initial rulings may disfavor the
Administration, outcomes tend to shift more favorably at higher
levels of judicial review.
BRIDGE POV
The district court rulings in favor of four major law firms
underscore a legal consensus around First Amendment protections for federal contractors and grantees. However, with the Perkins
Coie case now on appeal,
the legal environment is no longer static.
Historical data shows the Trump Administration
has had limited success in lower and appellate courts but
significantly higher success rates in Supreme Court proceedings. For firms operating in highly regulated sectors or engaging in
public advocacy, this pattern suggests that favorable lower court
decisions may offer only temporary clarity.
The potential for legal reversals at the appellate or Supreme
Court level introduces a new layer of uncertainty, especially for entities whose eligibility for federal contracts,
grants, or partnerships could be impacted by speech-related
policies.
-
Prepare for Shifting Legal Standards:
Organizations should not assume that recent district court rulings
will remain controlling. Legal teams should monitor the appellate
briefing schedule closely and prepare internal scenarios for a
range of outcomes—particularly if the D.C. Circuit or Supreme
Court signals a willingness to revisit the scope of government
authority over contractor speech and affiliation.
-
Reevaluate External Statements and Policy Commitments: Given the litigation's focus on diversity-related speech and
affiliations, firms with federal exposure should reexamine
public-facing statements, ESG reporting, and related advocacy
through a legal and risk lens. While many of these activities are
constitutionally protected, their treatment in contracting or
grant decisions may shift if appellate courts take a broader view
of executive discretion.
-
Strengthen Internal Alignment Across Legal, DEI, and External
Affairs: Organizations should ensure that legal, DEI, communications, and
government affairs functions are working from a shared
understanding of risk, especially where First Amendment,
procurement eligibility, and reputation intersect. Establishing
shared protocols for evaluating advocacy initiatives and public
statements can help balance mission commitments with evolving
regulatory risk.
|
|
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TARGETED ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE VI
AND TITLE IX
|
OVERVIEW
As reported in Project FORWARD Issue 5,
the administration launched a multi-agency Task Force to Combat
Antisemitism, charged with gathering information and recommending
actions across educational, employment, and public
institutions. The task force’s activities have now resulted in several
high-profile enforcement actions under Title VI, Title VII, and
Title IX.
The
investigation into the University of California (UC) system,
first reported in Issue 5, remains ongoing.
The inquiry is focused on allegations of antisemitic conduct
resulting in a hostile work environment for Jewish employees,
potentially in violation of Title VII’s prohibitions on
discrimination based on religion, race, or national origin.
At Harvard University, the task force has completed its review.
The administration concluded that the university violated Title VI
by failing to protect Jewish members of its community from
national origin-based discrimination in the form of antisemitism. This determination follows Harvard’s April public rejection of the
administration’s demands to dismantle its diversity, equity, and
inclusion programs and submit to expanded federal oversight. The
outcome may serve as a signal that institutions resisting DEI
rollbacks could face increased scrutiny on other civil rights
grounds.
Separately,
the Department of Education announced a settlement with the
University of Pennsylvania related to Title IX compliance. Following an investigation, the Department concluded that the
University had violated Title IX by allowing transgender athletes to
participate in interscholastic sports. Under the terms of the
settlement, the University has agreed to ban transgender athletes
from future interscholastic competition.
Lastly,
the Department of Justice has opened a new investigation into the
UC System, this time focused on potential violations of Title VI
and Title VII in connection with the “UC 2030 Capacity
Plan.”
The inquiry will examine whether the strategic plan’s
diversity-related hiring goals constitute race or sex-based
discrimination in violation of federal law.
LEGAL INTERPRETATION
The Trump Administration continues to engage in targeted
enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national
origin in federally funded education programs, and Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination
in educational institutions.
These statutes
have served as the legal basis for high-profile federal
investigations into alleged antisemitism at several elite
universities.
The investigations into Harvard University and the University of
Pennsylvania were initiated early in the Administration and have led
to the freezing of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal
funding to both institutions.
At the University of Pennsylvania, the Department of Education
concluded that the university had violated Title IX by allowing
transgender athletes to compete in interscholastic sports.
In March, the Administration also initiated an investigation into
antisemitic discrimination on the basis of national origin. That
matter was resolved through a negotiated settlement under which the
Administration is expected to release approximately $175 million in
previously frozen federal funds.
At Harvard, the Administration concluded that the university had
failed to protect Jewish students, faculty, and staff from
discrimination based on national origin in violation of Title VI.
While Harvard initially filed suit to challenge the federal
government’s attempt to condition settlement on significant
changes to academic governance and curricular control, the
university is now actively pursuing a negotiated
resolution.
If reached, the agreement could facilitate the return of over $400
million in frozen and revoked federal funds.
Separately, the University of California (UC) System remains the
subject of ongoing federal enforcement. A joint investigation by the
Department of Justice and the EEOC is examining allegations of
antisemitism against Jewish employees under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In
addition,
the Department of Justice has launched a new Title VII
investigation into whether the UC 2030 Capacity Plan constitutes
impermissible race- and sex-based discrimination in hiring. The strategic plan includes goals to better reflect California’s
racial and geographic diversity and to increase the representation
of underrepresented minority and female faculty, including
competitive funding for campus-led hiring pilots designed to support
those objectives.
Federal courts have consistently held that racial quotas in
hiring are prohibited, and that race or sex may only be considered
under narrow legal exceptions, such as to remedy specific and
documented patterns of past discrimination. Current law does not recognize diversity or demographic
representation as a standalone justification for the use of race- or
sex-conscious hiring practices.
These investigations are consistent with recent Executive Orders
issued by the Administration, including the Executive Order on
Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism, the Executive Order
Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports, and the Executive Order Ending
Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.
While these Executive Orders do not carry the force of law, they
guide enforcement priorities within federal agencies. The ultimate
interpretation and application of Title VI, Title VII, and Title
IX remain matters for the federal courts.
BRIDGE POV
Although recent enforcement actions have focused on major academic
institutions, the legal theories being advanced—particularly around
Title VI, Title VII, and Title IX—have implications for the private
sector.
The Administration is applying longstanding anti-discrimination
laws to investigate antisemitism and scrutinize hiring practices
that incorporate race or gender considerations. At the same time,
the use of federal funding as a tool for enforcing compliance
reflects a broader strategy that could be extended to federal
contractors, grantees, and other regulated entities.
The new investigation into the UC System’s hiring practices under
Title VII highlights how strategic diversity goals—particularly
those referencing demographic representation—may be reframed as
potential violations of federal anti-discrimination law. Similarly,
the findings against Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania for
failing to address antisemitism signal that organizational inaction
or perceived imbalance in response to identity-based concerns may
carry legal and financial consequences.
-
Reevaluate Demographic Hiring and Advancement Programs: Review any hiring, promotion, or compensation programs that
reference demographic diversity goals. Ensure all race- or
gender-related language is aligned with current law, which
prohibits quotas and narrowly limits the use of identity-based
criteria in employment decisions. Where possible, reframe goals
around neutral concepts such as inclusive access, skill
development, and barrier reduction.
-
Audit Workplace Policies and Training for Consistent Treatment
of Antisemitism: Examine whether antisemitism is addressed with the same level of
clarity and enforcement as other forms of discrimination and bias.
Ensure that complaint channels, training materials, and
enforcement procedures are equipped to recognize antisemitism as a
form of national origin, religious, or ethnic discrimination under
Title VII.
-
Monitor Civil Rights Enforcement Trends Beyond Higher
Education: Stay alert to how the federal government is using traditional
civil rights statutes to advance policy goals in areas like
antisemitism, gender identity, and workforce demographics. What
begins in the education sector often extends to federal
contractors and private-sector employers through agency guidance,
funding conditions, or litigation. Internal counsel and compliance
leaders should regularly assess emerging enforcement signals.
|
|
EEOC TAKES ACTION ON RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION WHILE TRANSGENDER
PROTECTIONS FACE UNCERTAINTY
|
OVERVIEW
As reported in Project FORWARD Issue 5, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced in March a coordinated
enforcement initiative with the Department of Justice focused on
addressing antisemitism in the workplace. That collaboration has now
resulted in several formal actions.
The EEOC has filed or settled multiple suits against employers
accused of engaging in religious discrimination against both
Christian and Jewish employees, citing violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
At the same time,
the agency is facing internal and external scrutiny regarding its
position on the enforcement of Title VII protections for
transgender individuals. During her recent confirmation hearing, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas
made public statements that prompted concern from former EEOC
leadership. In response, a group of former Commissioners and senior legal
staff issued a public statement calling on Lucas to clarify
whether the EEOC intends to maintain existing policies recognizing
that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of
prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII.
The developments
reflect a dual s stance on gender identity protections under
federal law.
LEGAL INTERPRETATION
The EEOC’s recent enforcement actions align closely with stated
policy priorities under the leadership of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas.
Upon assuming the role, Lucas identified her key areas of focus as
“defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related
rights, including women’s rights to single-sex spaces,” and
“protecting workers from religious bias and harassment.” These
themes are further reflected in the EEOC’s “First 120 Days” report,
which outlined enforcement activity in four and (4) defending women
from gender ideology.
Against this policy backdrop, the agency has filed or settled a
number of Title VII cases alleging religious discrimination,
particularly involving Christian and Jewish complainants. These
actions demonstrate a continued and expanding focus on religious
protections in the workplace.
However, recent statements by Chair Lucas during her Senate confirmation
hearing have raised concerns among former EEOC officials. A group
of former Commissioners and senior counsel issued a public
statement questioning whether the current Commission intends to
continue enforcing Title VII protections for transgender
employees.
Their concern centers on whether gender identity discrimination will
continue to be investigated and litigated under the established
interpretation of Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions.
As previously noted in Project FORWARD,
the question of Title VII protections for transgender individuals
remains unsettled in the current legal and regulatory environment. While prior EEOC interpretations—and case law such as Bostock v.
Clayton County—support such protections, the agency’s current
posture introduces uncertainty.
BRIDGE POV
In light of current enforcement trends, existing Executive Orders,
and public statements by EEOC leadership, employers should expect continued agency action on behalf of
religious complainants, particularly those identifying as
Christian or Jewish.
At the same time, the future of Title VII protections for
transgender employees remains unsettled—raising both legal and
reputational risk for employers navigating sensitive workplace
issues.
In this context, organizations with federal exposure—or operating in
highly regulated industries—should adopt a proactive approach to
legal compliance, internal alignment, and external communication.
Enforcement decisions may shift quickly depending on political
oversight, public scrutiny, and future court rulings. Legal
certainty is limited, but risk exposure is increasingly real.
-
Review DEI Language for Legal Risk Alignment:
Audit public- and employee-facing DEI materials for terms that may
trigger scrutiny under current EEOC enforcement priorities.
Phrases referencing gender identity, ideological commitments, or
demographic targets should be reviewed by legal counsel to assess
alignment with Title VII risk and clarity under current case law.
-
Update Religious Accommodation Protocols: Ensure
that religious accommodation requests are processed consistently,
documented thoroughly, and escalated appropriately. Emphasize
manager training on the handling of religious expression and
accommodation to mitigate potential liability in
enforcement-priority areas.
-
Maintain Internal Protections for Transgender
Employees:
Regardless of current EEOC positioning, organizations should
continue to enforce internal policies that prohibit discrimination
and harassment based on gender identity. Doing so reinforces a
commitment to equal opportunity, reduces workplace risk, and
supports employee well-being. Legal standards may shift, but a
clear, consistently applied nondiscrimination policy remains a
best practice.
|
|
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, July 31st from 12-1p ET honoring
Disability Pride Month and this year’s theme
“We Belong Here — and We’re Here to Stay.”
We’ll explore how true inclusion goes beyond access to agency,
leadership, and co-creation. Together,
we’ll examine how ableism shows up in our systems and how
we can embed accessibility across our organizations
in lasting, meaningful ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1276 Auto Park Way Suite D, PMB 183, Escondido,
CA 92029
|
|
This email was sent to {{contact.EMAIL}}
|
|
You've received it because you've subscribed to
our newsletter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|