IN THIS ISSUE

LGBTQ+ RIGHTS

EEOC Reverses Stance, Allows Some Transgender Discrimination Complaints 

• Federal agency shifts stance on transgender discrimination complaints, but hurdles remain

 

OVERVIEW

On August 15, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its enforcement posture regarding complaints from transgender workers. After months of limiting intake, the agency announced it will once again allow certain claims of discrimination in hiring, promotion, and discharge based on gender identity to proceed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

This shift follows scrutiny of the Commission’s direction during Acting Chair Andrea Lucas’s confirmation hearing earlier this summer. As covered in Issue 20, former EEOC Commissioners and senior legal staff issued a joint public statement urging clarification of whether the agency would continue to recognize discrimination based on gender identity as prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII.

 

By restoring at least partial enforcement, the EEOC is signaling that it will maintain some alignment with the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision, while still subjecting cases to heightened internal review.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The EEOC’s decision to resume processing certain transgender discrimination complaints must be read in light of both Supreme Court precedent and the agency’s enforcement discretion. 
 

In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Court held that discrimination against gay and transgender employees is discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII. That remains binding law nationwide, and any retreat from it risks creating litigation exposure for the agency itself.

 

While Bostock establishes the legal baseline, the EEOC has latitude in how aggressively it accepts, investigates, and litigates claims. Its prior pullback drew criticism as inconsistent with the statute and judicial precedent, and the partial reversal reflects an effort to realign enforcement with established case law while balancing political pressures, including the impact of recent anti-LGBTQ+ executive orders.

 

In practice, the Commission appears to be concentrating on core employment actions—such as hiring, firing, and promotion—while continuing to tread more cautiously in areas like benefits, facilities, or training, where lower courts remain divided. 

 

This selective enforcement creates uneven expectations depending on jurisdiction, leaving courts as the ultimate backstop. For employers, the practical effect is an increased likelihood of EEOC investigation or conciliation tied to gender identity claims, even though the breadth of coverage remains narrower than in prior years.

 

BRIDGE POV

The EEOC’s partial course correction is a reminder that binding Supreme Court precedent still governs workplace obligations, regardless of political swings. Bostock remains the law of the land, and companies cannot assume that shifting enforcement priorities or executive orders diminish that obligation. While agencies may narrow their focus or adjust resources, courts remain the ultimate arbiters — and litigation risk does not disappear.

 

For business leaders, the lesson is clear: politics are not a business strategy. Aligning policies with fluctuating political winds may create short-term cover but exposes companies to long-term legal, reputational, and employee-relations risks. The most durable path is to anchor practices in binding legal standards and the company’s own stated values, demonstrating consistency and integrity even as the regulatory environment shifts.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reaffirm Compliance with Bostock: Ensure policies, training, and handbooks clearly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. This alignment with binding Supreme Court precedent provides both a legal shield and a values-based anchor.
    
2. Document Good-Faith Decisions: When navigating contested areas (benefits, facilities, training), maintain contemporaneous legal analysis and board or leadership records showing reliance on counsel. This evidence reduces exposure if enforcement or litigation arises in a politically charged environment.
    
3. Lead with Values, Not Politics: Publicly and internally reinforce inclusion commitments as part of business integrity. Consistency in values builds trust with employees, customers, and regulators — ensuring credibility even when political climates change.

COURTS & LITIGATION

Federal Judge Strikes Trump-Era Anti-DEI Directives

• Judge strikes down Trump administration guidance against diversity programs at schools and colleges 
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in Light of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (PDF)  
• Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken in Exchange for Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and Request for Certification under Title VI and SFFA v. Harvard

 

OVERVIEW

On August 15, 2025, a federal judge in Maryland struck down the Department of Education’s February 14 “Dear Colleague” letter (DCL) that sought to extend the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruling far beyond admissions, effectively prohibiting DEI programming across nearly all aspects of federally funded education.

 

As reported in Issue 10, the DCL triggered lawsuits by unions, academic associations, and civil rights groups, and was partially enjoined in April. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, ruled that the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) exceeded its statutory authority, failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures, and imposed unconstitutional conditions on speech. While, for now, the decision removes a major legal cloud for schools, universities, and other federally funded entities, appeals are likely.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Judge Gallagher’s ruling underscores how courts are scrutinizing the procedural and constitutional foundations of federal directives, not just their policy aims. The opinion held that OCR attempted to convert a Supreme Court decision narrowly limited to admissions into a sweeping ban on DEI across education, without the statutory authority or rulemaking process to support it.

 

By framing the DCL as both ultra vires (beyond the agency’s power) and a violation of First Amendment protections, the court rejected the government’s attempt to use guidance letters as regulatory shortcuts. The fact that the decision came from a Trump-appointed judge highlights that judicial analysis here turns less on politics than on established doctrines of administrative law.

 

The ruling is the first significant judicial check on the administration’s anti-DEI strategy and sets a precedent likely to shape future litigation against related executive actions. While appeals are expected, the immediate effect is to restore autonomy for institutions that had been weighing compliance against maintaining DEI infrastructure, underscoring the courts’ role as a counterweight to executive overreach.

 

BRIDGE POV

This ruling is a reminder that binding law still holds guardrails, even in a political climate hostile to DEI. Institutions that scrambled to scale back inclusion work under the February DCL now have room to breathe. For the private sector, the message is clear: do not over-correct based on shifting politics. Values and credibility outlast executive guidance.

 

Companies that contort their policies to follow short-term directives risk looking reactive and eroding trust with employees, customers, and courts. Resilience comes from anchoring strategy in law, transparency, and long-term values—not in chasing every political swing.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Review Compliance Policies: Confirm that education-related partnerships, grants, and sponsorships align with statutory law, not just shifting federal guidance.
    
2. Anchor to Core Values: Reaffirm inclusion and equity commitments in governance documents and leadership communications to avoid reactive reversals that damage credibility.
    
3. Scenario Plan for Appeals: Anticipate the possibility of reversal at the appellate level; prepare messaging and risk assessments so you can adjust without appearing reactive.

FEDERAL FUNDING & OVERSIGHT

FCC’s EEO Audits Expand to Include DEI Screening

• FCC’s Enforcement Bureau Launches 2025 EEO Audits

 

OVERVIEW

On August 8, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s Enforcement Bureau issued its annual Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) audit letters to a randomly selected 5% of radio and television broadcasters, newly incorporating explicit requests for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program documentation. Stations must submit details on employment policies, recruitment data, and DEI initiatives.

 

The FCC stated that the audits are designed to ensure “equal opportunity in broadcast employment practices” and that results could inform broader rulemaking on industry hiring obligations. Failure to comply can result in fines, public reporting of noncompliance, or even challenges to license renewal.

 

This year’s expansion marks the first time the FCC has formally folded DEI program scrutiny into its EEO review process, signaling closer examination of how regulated entities design, describe, and track inclusion policies. It also reflects Chair Brendan Carr’s broader posture, which has included anti-DEI contingencies in mergers and licensing decisions.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Legally, this development reflects a shift in regulatory posture: the FCC is reframing its EEO authority to scrutinize DEI programs not only for compliance with equal opportunity mandates, but also for potential violations of anti-preference principles. While the Communications Act requires broadcasters to engage in broad, nondiscriminatory recruitment, it does not prohibit proactive diversity outreach — creating legal ambiguity about how far the FCC can go in policing such efforts.

 

By explicitly flagging DEI initiatives for review, the audits may test the limits of the Commission’s discretion and could invite challenges under both the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment if enforcement is perceived as ideologically driven. At the same time, responses to audit requests are subject to certification, meaning inaccurate or inconsistent documentation could expose broadcasters to fines or even license challenges regardless of policy substance.

 

The result is that broadcasters face a double-sided risk: diversity-focused outreach could be recast as regulatory liability, while insufficient documentation could trigger compliance penalties. This raises the stakes for compliance strategies in the 2025 audit cycle and puts DEI reporting on par with other core licensing obligations.

 

BRIDGE POV

The FCC’s move signals an ideological reframing of regulatory oversight. While inclusion efforts remain fully consistent with equal opportunity mandates under federal law, the examination of those efforts has changed — what was once viewed as aligned with nondiscrimination may now be tested for alleged preference. For private-sector leaders, the takeaway is not to retreat from inclusion, but to ensure that initiatives are grounded in accurate documentation and clearly tied to legal standards of equal access.

 

Binding law still supports nondiscriminatory outreach, but companies cannot assume regulators will interpret inclusion neutrally. Anchoring compliance in accuracy, transparency, and corporate values is the surest protection. Businesses that retreat or contort policies to track short-term politics risk losing credibility with employees, customers, and courts. Politics may change, but values-based consistency builds resilience.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Align Inclusion With Statutory Language: Frame DEI initiatives explicitly in terms of “broad, nondiscriminatory recruitment” and equal access. Avoid language that suggests preference or quota, but make clear that outreach is designed to widen opportunity — fully consistent with binding law.
    
2. Strengthen Documentation Discipline: Ensure DEI program descriptions, recruitment logs, and outreach records are accurate, consistent, and defensible. Treat DEI documentation with the same rigor as other compliance filings — this minimizes the risk that inclusion efforts are mischaracterized.
    
3. Scenario-Plan for Scrutiny: Prepare leadership for the dual possibility that regulators may either question whether outreach is sufficient or claim it goes too far. Build a board-level playbook that demonstrates policies are rooted in compliance and values, not political trends.

AI & TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE

Meta Appoints Anti-LGBTQ+ Activist Robby Starbuck as AI “Bias Advisor” Following Defamation Settlement 

 

OVERVIEW

On August 14, 2025, Meta Platforms settled a defamation lawsuit brought by conservative activist Robby Starbuck, whose name had been falsely linked by Meta’s AI to January 6 insurrection content. As part of the settlement, Meta agreed to appoint Starbuck as an advisor on AI political bias and to review its systems for alleged suppression of conservative viewpoints.

 

The appointment has drawn scrutiny from civil rights groups and former employees who question Starbuck’s qualifications and neutrality, citing his record of opposing corporate DEI policies and making anti-LGBTQ+ statements. Critics warn that his role could steer Meta’s AI systems toward reduced inclusivity or embed a right-wing agenda into platform governance.

 

The development also aligns with the Administration’s recent Executive Order on AI, which prohibits so-called “woke DEI” requirements in federal AI use — a stance that directly mirrors Starbuck’s views.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Legally, the settlement does not alter civil-rights or AI law — but it does reshape corporate governance of AI risk in ways that may reverberate. By giving an activist plaintiff an official advisory role, Meta has effectively allowed litigation outcomes to dictate governance structure, a precedent that could embolden similar claims across industries.

 

This development must also be viewed alongside Meta’s January 2025 decision to end its third-party fact-checking program in the United States. That shift, widely criticized for allowing harmful characterizations of LGBTQ+ people and flagged by Meta’s Oversight Board as lacking human-rights due diligence, significantly reduced internal guardrails against disinformation. Taken together, these moves suggest a retreat from expert-driven oversight toward external “bias” advisors and community-policing mechanisms.

 

For companies, the legal risk lies less in the appointment itself and more in the outcomes: if AI systems generate discriminatory or hostile results, regulators can act under existing statutes. Federal agencies have underscored that algorithmic bias is subject to civil-rights and consumer-protection laws, and liability may attach even absent intent. Weakening internal safeguards while elevating politically aligned advisors increases both enforcement exposure and reputational risk.

 

BRIDGE POV

Meta’s decision illustrates the perils of letting litigation dictate governance in emerging technology. Elevating a politically aligned critic with no clear technical expertise blurs the line between AI risk management and political concession. For CEOs and GCs, the signal is that AI governance must be structured to withstand both regulatory scrutiny and reputational tests — not shaped by whoever litigates most loudly.

 

Employees, users, and regulators will ultimately judge not by who advises, but by whether the system produces fair and safe outcomes. Companies that anchor oversight in independence and expertise, rather than politics, will preserve both credibility and compliance.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Protect Governance Independence: Ensure advisory roles on AI bias are filled by experts with verifiable civil-rights or technical credentials, and disclose governance criteria to pre-empt questions about capture.
    
2. Audit for Civil-Rights Outcomes: Move beyond “political bias” framing and run systematic disparate-impact reviews on AI outputs. Document methodologies and remediation plans — regulators are already signaling these as enforcement priorities.
    
3. Reinforce Safeguards After Oversight Cuts: If prior guardrails (like fact-checking) are rolled back, publicly demonstrate what new mechanisms are in place to protect against harmful or discriminatory content. This builds trust with employees, customers, and regulators while insulating leadership from claims of neglect.
    

See also: “Ten critical actions every company should take now to ensure AI development remains ethical, inclusive, and aligned with long-term business viability” (Issue 23).

COURTS & LITIGATION

Split Rulings on State DEI Bans: Mississippi Blocked, Alabama Moves Ahead

• Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools 

 

OVERVIEW

In Mississippi, a federal district court temporarily blocked enforcement of the state’s DEI ban, finding that the law likely infringes on protected speech and academic freedom. The ruling halts implementation while litigation proceeds, marking one of the first successful challenges to a state-level DEI prohibition.

 

In Alabama, by contrast, a federal judge declined to halt the state’s DEI restrictions, allowing them to remain in effect while the case continues. The court emphasized deference to state policymaking authority and found the plaintiffs had not met the burden for preliminary relief.

 

Together, the rulings highlight a growing split in how courts are handling state-level DEI bans, underscoring the uncertain compliance landscape for employers and universities operating across jurisdictions.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

These two rulings illustrate how federal courts are taking distinctly different constitutional approaches to similar state DEI restrictions.

 

In Mississippi, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate issued a preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of the state’s DEI ban—those prohibiting “divisive concepts” and DEI programs—while litigation is ongoing. Wingate found the provisions likely violated the First Amendment (free speech) and Fourteenth Amendment (vagueness and chilling effect), noting they lacked viewpoint neutrality and posed significant risks to academic freedom. He also expanded the case to a class-wide injunction, extending the protections statewide.

 

By contrast, in Alabama, U.S. District Judge David Proctor declined to pause enforcement of a nearly identical DEI ban. Proctor ruled plaintiffs failed to establish the stringent criteria required for a preliminary injunction. He emphasized deference to state regulatory authority, asserted that classroom instruction is government speech, and pointed to carve-outs allowing “objective discussion” of certain topics.

 

The split underscores a fundamental conflict in constitutional framing. In Mississippi, the court leaned on speech and due process rights, treating DEI bans as potentially unconstitutional restrictions on academic freedom. In Alabama, the court prioritized judicial restraint and deference to state policymaking, effectively allowing restrictive policies to stand absent clear constitutional violations. For private-sector organizations, especially universities and employers operating across multiple states, this divergence creates a fractured compliance environment where DEI initiatives may be legally protected in one jurisdiction but chilled in another.

 

BRIDGE POV

The Mississippi and Alabama rulings highlight a volatile compliance map for companies, universities, and nonprofits operating across multiple states. Leaders cannot assume DEI bans will be treated uniformly by the courts; the same statutory language is producing opposite results depending on judicial philosophy.

 

This legal fragmentation means politics, not settled law, are driving enforcement. Companies that simply track local swings risk whiplash and reputational harm. The durable strategy is to ground DEI commitments in business needs, workforce integrity, and long-term values, documenting why inclusion remains central regardless of shifting state restrictions. Courts may diverge, but employees, customers, and markets will still expect consistency.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Map Jurisdictional Risk: Track where state-level DEI bans are active, blocked, or under challenge. Maintain a living compliance map for HR, university partnerships, and government contracts.
    
2. Separate Values from Variance: Where bans create legal constraints, adapt implementation methods — but reaffirm commitment to inclusive principles. Communicate clearly that values are not contingent on geography.
    
3. Document Business Rationale: Prepare internal and external messaging that ties DEI to talent, innovation, and risk management. Documentation provides legal cover and reinforces that inclusion is a core business practice, not a political preference.
    

See also: “Wave of state-level DEI bans and emerging litigation challenges” (Issue 20).