­

July 11, 2025 - Issue #20

­
­
Project Forward Weekly Guidance

WEEKLY 
GUIDANCE

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:

  • 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.

BUDGET BILL DEFUNDS OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS

  • FY 2026 Congressional Budget Justification 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.

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  • Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP: Executive ORder #14230
  • Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey: Executive Order #14263
  • Perkins Coie’s response to the unlawful Executive Order targeting the firm  
  • Filings Relating to the Administration's Executive Order Against Susman Godfrey 
  • The Supreme Court Is at War With Its Own Judiciary
     

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. 

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  • Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism: Executive Order #13899 
  • Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism Letter to Harvard University 
  • U.S. Department of Education Announces the University of Pennsylvania Has Entered into a Resolution Agreement to Resolve its Title IX Violations 
  • Justice Department Opens Investigation into the University of California System for Race- and Sex-Based Employment Practices
     

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.

 

  1. 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.
  2.  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.
  3. 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

  • EEOC Charges FCA with Firing Worker for Practicing His Faith   
  • The Venetian Resort Las Vegas Settles Religious Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
  • EEOC Sues Rock Snowpark for Religious Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission   
  • EEOC Sues Omni Hotels for Religious Discrimination and Retaliation 
  • An Open Letter to EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas
     

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.

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

SIGN UP HERE
­
­

BRIDGE

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.

Unsubscribe