IN THIS ISSUE

Federal Workers in DEI-Related Roles Sue Trump Administration Over Mass Terminations

• Trump administration illegally fired workers for real or perceived DEI roles, lawsuit alleges
  
  

A proposed class action filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. challenges the administration’s removal of federal employees whose duties involved DEI-related functions. The lawsuit targets Executive Order 14151 and Executive Order 14173, which directed agencies to eliminate DEI-related policies, offices, and job roles across the government.

The plaintiffs allege that the orders violated thousands of workers’ First Amendment rights to free speech and association by treating DEI-related responsibilities as prohibited viewpoints and using those duties as grounds for termination.

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

This issue begins with three related developments at the EEOC that collectively define the current federal enforcement environment. The stories that follow outline how these shifts affect employer compliance and governance.

Former EEOC Leaders Warn Employers as Federal Agencies Escalate Efforts to Recast DEI as Unlawful 

• The Time Is Now – Fight Back/ Move Forward 
• EEO Leaders’ Response to the July 2025 DOJ Memo on “Unlawful Discrimination” 

OVERVIEW

On November 18, a coalition of former EEOC Chairs, Commissioners, and senior civil-rights officials—now operating collectively as EEO Leaders— issued a coordinated memo warning employers about what they describe as a significant escalation in federal agency efforts to portray certain DEI practices as unlawful. The memo, titled THE TIME IS NOW – FIGHT BACK / MOVE FORWARD, reflects the group’s combined experience overseeing federal civil-rights enforcement across multiple administrations.

According to EEO Leaders, several federal agencies—including the Department of Justice, the EEOC, and the Department of Education—have recently taken steps that frame a broad range of employer DEI initiatives as potentially discriminatory, despite no changes to the underlying federal civil-rights statutes. 

Additionally, in a separate memo, EEO Leaders’ Response to the July 2025 DOJ Memo on “Unlawful Discrimination” the organization cites the DOJ Civil Division’s July 2025 guidance  as one example of this shift, noting that the document implies that many workplace inclusion programs may violate federal law, even though Title VII’s standards remain unchanged.

The memos identify what EEO Leaders view as a pattern across multiple federal  pressure on federally funded institutions, and public statements that suggest limitations on workplace programs that use protected characteristics. According to the authors, these developments collectively create uncertainty about what federal law actually requires.

EEO Leaders state that their intention in issuing these memos is to clarify the governing legal framework and reaffirm that federal civil-rights statutes remain unchanged. They emphasize that agencies cannot revise Title VII through executive action or internal guidance and that employers should continue to rely on longstanding nondiscrimination principles rather than treat recent agency communications as binding legal changes.

The Time is Now memo also outlines the organization’s next steps. EEO Leaders state that they will continue monitoring federal actions and will respond to efforts they believe mislead employers or undermine established civil-rights law. In addition to countering what they describe as inaccurate interpretations of Title VII, the group calls for rebuilding dismantled equal employment opportunity structures and developing protections to ensure their durability. 

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The analysis of the two memos issued by EEO Leaders, a coalition of former EEOC governors and senior civil-rights officials, is grounded in the existing federal statutory framework, particularly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The authors underscore that Title VII’s operative standard—prohibiting employment decisions made “because of” protected characteristics—has not been amended and continues to define the boundaries of lawful employer conduct.

The memos contend that recent agency communications, guidance documents, and enforcement signals do not possess independent authority to alter statutory requirements. Under established administrative law principles, agencies may interpret and enforce Title VII, but they cannot revise or expand its obligations through informal memoranda or public statements.

In referencing the DOJ Civil Division’s July 2025 guidance, the authors suggest that it reflects an interpretive posture that extends beyond the statute’s current contours. Because such documents are not promulgated through binding rulemaking or adjudication, the memo states that they do not, on their own, create new legal duties for employers.

The authors emphasize that the evaluation of workplace programs—including DEI initiatives—remains anchored in the statutory text and governing case law. They note that courts, rather than administrative communications, ultimately determine whether particular practices constitute unlawful discrimination under federal law.

 

BRIDGE POV

The EEO Leaders memos reinforce a reality many organizations are confronting: the legal framework governing workplace nondiscrimination has not shifted, even as federal rhetoric accelerates. For employers, the signal is not to retreat from lawful DEI efforts, but to root them more firmly in the statutory principles that have long defined compliance. 

The central contribution of the memos is clarity. It distinguishes between law and positioning, reminding executives that informal guidance—however forcefully communicated—does not replace Title VII or the body of case law that interprets it. At a time when employers are receiving mixed messages from multiple federal sources, that distinction is not theoretical; it is operational.

The risk is not in maintaining compliant DEI structures, but in reacting to noise rather than law. The organizations that navigate this period most effectively will be those that resist overcorrection, maintain transparent governance, and align opportunity-focused programs with well-established legal parameters. This is a landscape that rewards steadiness and precision.

The Time is Now memo also introduces a broader imperative: the long-term viability of equal employment systems. The call to rebuild weakened structures and modernize protections signals that the conversation is not solely about defending legacy programs—it is about positioning organizations for the workforce realities ahead. Employers who take that seriously will be better equipped for an environment where expectations continue to evolve, regardless of political cycles.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reaffirm DEI programs within clear legal parameters: Review initiatives to ensure they rely on neutral, job-related criteria and reflect Title VII’s established nondiscrimination standards. Clarify documentation so intent and structure match the statutory framework.
    
2. Distinguish legal requirements from agency positioning: Create an internal protocol for evaluating federal communications—separating binding rules and case law from informal guidance—so decisions are grounded in actual legal authority rather than rhetorical shifts.
   
   
3. Strengthen long-term EEO governance: Modernize core EEO processes, including selection criteria, adverse-impact monitoring, and management training, to build systems resilient to policy fluctuations and aligned with enduring legal expectations.
    

See also: DOJ Issues Guidance on Compliance With Federal Anti-discrimination Law in Practice of DEI (Issue 24)

EXECUTIVE ORDERS & FEDERAL POLICY

Trump Selects Employer-Side Litigator Carter Crow as Nominee for EEOC General Counsel 

• President Trump Nominates Carter Crow to EEOC 

 

OVERVIEW

On November 18, Trump nominated Carter Crow, an employer-side labor and employment attorney, to serve as General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Crow is a partner at a national law firm where his practice focuses on representing employers in discrimination, harassment, and retaliation matters, as well as in EEOC investigations and related federal litigation.

If confirmed, Crow would become the EEOC’s chief legal officer, responsible for directing the agency’s litigation program, supervising regional attorneys, and determining which cases the Commission authorizes for filing in federal court. The role also oversees the development of legal positions advanced by the EEOC in enforcement actions and amicus briefs.

Crow’s nomination follows a series of Administration efforts to reassess how federal agencies approach civil-rights enforcement, including matters involving workplace DEI programs and the use of protected characteristics in employment policies. His background reflects experience advocating for employers in disputes and investigations brought under federal anti-discrimination laws.

The nomination will next be considered by the Senate, and confirmation timing has not yet been announced.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The memo issued by the White House announcing Carter Crow’s nomination identifies the statutory basis for the  policymaking functions.

Crow’s background as an employer-side attorney does not alter the legal framework that governs the EEOC’s enforcement authority. Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and related civil-rights statutes establish the substantive standards the Commission enforces, regardless of who occupies the General Counsel role. The General Counsel is responsible for evaluating potential cases for litigation, directing regional attorneys, and determining when to initiate or continue enforcement actions, but cannot change statutory obligations or revise the legal standards embodied in the civil-rights laws.

As with all nominations to this position, Crow’s confirmation would place him in charge of advancing the agency’s legal positions in federal court and deciding when the EEOC participates as amicus. These responsibilities must be exercised within the confines of the governing statutes, existing regulations, and binding judicial precedent. Senate consideration will determine whether he assumes those duties.

 

BRIDGE POV

Crow’s nomination marks a notable shift in the profile of candidates put forward for the EEOC’s top legal role. Unlike recent General Counsel nominees, he brings a deep record of defending employers in complex discrimination and retaliation matters — including representing companies in investigations initiated by the EEOC itself — into a position more commonly held by attorneys with a broader mix of enforcement or public-sector experience.

The EEOC has long defined part of its mission around protecting workers who face barriers in asserting their rights. In the current political environment, the understanding of who is “vulnerable” is being interpreted in ways that conflict with established enforcement principles. The General Counsel, however, is bound by the agency’s statutory mandate, not the priorities of any administration or political appointee. The integrity of the Commission depends on that independence.

Crow’s effectiveness, should he be confirmed, will rest on how he balances his employer-side litigation background with the Commission’s charge to enforce civil-rights protections consistently and impartially.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reconfirm alignment between internal practices and statutory obligations: Review investigation protocols, documentation standards, and decision-making criteria to ensure they are squarely anchored in Title VII and related civil-rights statutes, not in assumptions about shifting agency rhetoric.
    
2. Strengthen systems that demonstrate consistency and fairness: Ensure hiring, promotion, and discipline processes are governed by clear, job-related criteria and applied uniformly. A General Counsel with extensive employer-side experience will understand where inconsistencies typically arise.
    
3. Elevate documentation and audit readiness: Conduct a focused audit of EEO records, training practices, and case files to confirm that policies and outcomes can withstand legal scrutiny. Precision in documentation reduces exposure regardless of leadership changes at the Commission.

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

EEOC Chair Lucas Emphasizes Legal, Not Political,  Means Unlawful Discrimination — Not All Diversity Efforts  

• EEOC Chair Discusses Illegal DEI Agency Priorities Post Shutdown 

 

OVERVIEW

On November 19, 2025, recently confirmed EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas appeared on FortneyScott’s workplace law podcast to clarify the Commission’s use of the term “illegal DEI.” Lucas emphasized that the EEOC is not characterizing all diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as unlawful. Instead, she noted that the phrase refers specifically to workplace practices that violate federal civil-rights statutes by treating protected characteristics as factors in employment decisions.

Lucas explained that certain initiatives — such as programs that impose eligibility criteria, preferences, or exclusions based on race, sex, or other protected traits — may constitute unlawful discrimination under Title VII and related laws, even when framed as DEI efforts. She underscored that the governing legal standard remains rooted in statutory nondiscrimination requirements and established case law, not in political debates surrounding DEI terminology.

At the same time, Lucas affirmed that many common inclusion practices remain lawful when structured appropriately. She noted that training, mentorship, outreach, and broad-based workforce development programs continue to fall within federal civil-rights parameters when they do not rely on protected-class classifications. Her remarks come as employers seek clearer guidance on distinguishing permissible DEI initiatives from practices that could create legal exposure.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The memo issued by the EEOC Chair reflects the statutory framework governing federal civil-rights law, particularly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Title VII, employers may not make employment decisions “because of” protected characteristics such as race, sex, religion, or national origin. Chair Lucas’s remarks reiterate that this statutory standard — not the label attached to a program — determines whether a workplace initiative is lawful.

According to Lucas, the term “illegal DEI” refers to practices that treat protected characteristics as criteria for eligibility, preference, or exclusion in employment decisions. Such practices may violate Title VII regardless of whether they are intended to promote diversity or inclusion. This interpretation aligns with longstanding EEOC positions that policies explicitly tied to protected traits can give rise to claims of disparate treatment.

Lucas also emphasized that many DEI initiatives remain permissible under federal law when structured without reliance on protected characteristics. Programs focused on training, mentorship, outreach, or broad recruitment efforts fall within established legal parameters when they apply neutral, job-related criteria. Her remarks clarify that the EEOC’s analysis remains rooted in statutory text and case law, rather than political terminology surrounding DEI.

BRIDGE POV

Lucas’s remarks provide an important counterweight in a moment where “illegal DEI” is being used broadly — and often inaccurately — in public debate. Her clarification returns the focus to what actually governs employer conduct: federal civil-rights law. By stating plainly that DEI initiatives are not unlawful by definition, she reinforces a distinction that has become increasingly blurred.

The significance is twofold. First, it dispels the notion that all DEI carries legal risk; the risk arises only when protected characteristics are treated as determinants in employment decisions. Second, it underscores that lawful DEI continues to have a clear place within the federal framework when structured around neutral, job-related criteria. In an environment marked by shifting rhetoric and inconsistent agency signals, this type of clarity is essential.

Lucas’s framing is a reminder that compliance is anchored in long-standing statutory protections — not politics, terminology, or public controversy.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reassess DEI programs for protected-class reliance: Evaluate whether any initiative includes eligibility criteria, preferences, or exclusions tied to race, sex, or other protected traits, and revise those elements to align with Title VII’s nondiscrimination standards.
    
2.  Maintain DEI efforts grounded in neutral, job-related criteria: Ensure training, mentorship, outreach, and development programs are structured around business needs, skill gaps, and broad workforce goals — not protected-class classifications.
    
3. Document the legal basis of inclusion programs: Create clear documentation showing how each DEI activity aligns with federal civil-rights requirements. This helps demonstrate compliance if programs are questioned and supports consistency across departments.

COURTS & LITIGATION

Court Rejects First Major FCA Retaliation Suit Challenging “DEI-Related” Use of Federal Funds — Signals Possible Limits of Civil-Rights Fraud Strategy  

• A Sign Of What's To Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based On Alleged Discriminatory Use Of Federal Funding 

 

OVERVIEW

On November 7, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation lawsuit in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155. The plaintiff alleged he was fired after raising concerns that the organization’s DEI-related use of federal funds constituted fraud. The court rejected the claim, finding the complaint did not plausibly allege protected whistleblowing activity or identify any false statement or certification that could support an FCA violation.

The court held that objections to internal DEI spending or allegations of discrimination do not, without more, amount to fraud against the federal government. It further found that the plaintiff’s concerns were too remote from any potential false claim to qualify as protected conduct under the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision.

The ruling is one of the first federal decisions to test whether complaints about DEI-related funding practices can support an FCA retaliation theory. The decision comes as the federal government advances the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which encourages the use of the FCA to pursue alleged false certifications of civil-rights compliance tied to federal funding.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The court’s analysis in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences applies established principles under the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA addresses fraud on the federal government, not discrimination on its own. The court reiterated that alleged discriminatory use of federal funds does not meet the FCA’s falsity requirement unless it is tied to a knowingly false statement or false certification submitted to the government.

In dismissing the claim, the court found no allegation that the defendant made a false certification regarding compliance with civil-rights laws or misrepresented its use of federal funding. Internal concerns about discriminatory conduct, without a reasonable basis to believe fraud occurred, do not constitute protected activity under the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision. This reflects the statute’s focus on conduct that could reasonably lead to an FCA action, rather than general compliance or civil-rights disputes.

This boundary also appears in litigation surrounding Executive Order 14173’s civil-rights certification provision. As reported in Issue 38, a federal district court in Illinois issued and upheld a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of the Department of Labor’s DEI certification rule for federal contractors (Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump). For grants and contracts governed by that injunction, the government cannot rely on EO 14173’s certification requirement as a basis for FCA liability.

In both cases, the courts focused on whether there was a concrete compliance obligation tied to federal funding and a false certification or misrepresentation alleged. Where those elements were absent, the courts treated the disputes as matters for traditional civil-rights statutes rather than the False Claims Act.

 

BRIDGE POV

The court’s dismissal in Thornton offers an important clarification at a moment when civil-rights disputes are increasingly being reframed as potential fraud. The ruling underscores a basic but often overlooked principle: the FCA governs fraud on the federal government, not workplace discrimination, and the two cannot be collapsed without a clear, falsifiable funding condition and an actual false certification.

That distinction matters. As federal agencies advance new civil-rights certification requirements and signal interest in FCA-based enforcement theories, some employees and private litigants have tested whether objections to DEI-related activity can be recast as whistleblower claims. Thornton shows the limits of that approach. Without a specific compliance obligation tied to federal funds — and a false statement made about that obligation — allegations of discriminatory use of funding remain questions for traditional civil-rights law, not the FCA.

The case provides early judicial guidance in a developing area: civil-rights compliance and fraud enforcement are not interchangeable. That boundary should guide how organizations structure certifications, document compliance, and assess internal reports related to federally funded programs.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Map federal funding to specific compliance certifications:Identify which civil-rights obligations are tied to particular grants or contracts, and ensure certifications are precise, accurate, and trackable. FCA exposure depends on these anchors.
    
2. Strengthen internal reporting pathways for funding-related concerns: Distinguish between civil-rights complaints and allegations that implicate federal funding or certifications. Routing issues correctly reduces the risk of FCA retaliation claims.
    
3. Document the basis for program decisions involving federal funds: Maintain clear records showing how DEI or workforce activities funded by federal grants comply with applicable conditions. Well-structured documentation protects against attempts to reframe compliance disputes as fraud allegations.

See also: Illinois Court Upholds Nationwide Block on Key DEI Certification Rule (Issue 38)

FEDERAL FUNDING & OVERSIGHT

FCC Pressures AT&T to Dismantle DEI Programs as Condition for Merger Approval, Expanding a Pattern of Regulatory Coercion  

• AT&T commits to ending DEI programs  

 

OVERVIEW

On December 2, 2025, AT&T announced that it will eliminate all company-wide diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as part of commitments made to federal regulators during a recent FCC review process. According to AT&T, the agreement includes ending DEI initiatives across its workforce, restructuring internal programs that reference protected characteristics, and implementing new reporting and monitoring requirements tied to compliance. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr stated that AT&T’s letter submitted on Tuesday confirmed the commitment the company made earlier in the year to end DEI-related policies.

The commitments were made in connection with federal regulatory approvals AT&T sought this year, during which regulators raised concerns that the company’s DEI programs could conflict with federal nondiscrimination standards. As part of the negotiated terms, AT&T agreed to phase out the programs by the end of 2025 and revise associated training, hiring, governance, and workplace structures to align with conditions set by the regulators.

As reported in Issue 21, T-Mobile previously agreed to halt its DEI initiatives to secure FCC approval for acquisitions of US Cellular’s wireless operations and Metronet. AT&T, by contrast, had publicly rejected similar conditions at the time. The company’s new commitment represents one of the most significant corporate reversals to date tied directly to securing federal regulatory clearance and reflects a broader pattern of agencies conditioning approvals or settlements on the reduction or removal of DEI initiatives.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The FCC’s authority to impose merger conditions comes from the Communications Act, which permits the agency to approve transactions only when they serve the “public interest.” That authority has traditionally centered on competition, market structure, licensing, and service obligations. Conditioning approval on changes to internal DEI programs raises questions about how such requirements connect to the agency’s statutory mandate.

AT&T’s commitments do not change the legal framework governing employers. Under Title VII, DEI programs remain permissible when they do not make protected characteristics determinative in employment decisions. The conditions agreed to in the FCC process reflect a negotiated regulatory term, not a modification of federal civil-rights law.

The situation also presents potential First Amendment issues. Courts have held that the government cannot condition access to approvals or benefits on a regulated entity’s acceptance or rejection of particular viewpoints. If aspects of DEI programming carry expressive content—such as values statements or training—compelling their removal as a prerequisite for approval may implicate those principles. The legal viability of such concerns would depend on the specific record and whether the FCC can show a sufficient connection between the condition imposed and its statutory authority.

Ultimately, the legality of these conditions turns on whether they bear a clear nexus to the Communications Act’s public-interest standard. Conditions aimed at internal workforce practices may face challenge if courts find that connection lacking.

 

BRIDGE POV

The FCC’s use of merger approval to pressure AT&T into dismantling its DEI programs reflects a broader pattern of regulators tying internal workforce policies to ideological demands. Agencies with no civil-rights mandate are increasingly leveraging transactional authority to influence corporate governance, not because the programs violate federal law, but because they conflict with political priorities. That is not conventional regulation — it is coercion.

The move also carries reputational risk, placing AT&T in the center of a debate that extends beyond compliance and into questions of values and autonomy. For a major consumer brand, changes made under pressure can be perceived as concessions rather than strategic decisions.

Capitulating to informal pressure sets a precedent that agency leverage can override institutional autonomy. Upholding DEI commitments—where lawful and aligned with business goals—is not only a matter of legal defensibility, but of protecting the principle that strategic direction should be led by leadership, not extracted through regulatory coercion.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Establish clear red lines around workforce autonomy before entering regulatory negotiations: Identify which internal policies—DEI or otherwise—are lawful, core to strategy, and non-negotiable. Document these positions internally so leadership is aligned before any agency seeks concessions that exceed its authority.
    
2. Strengthen the legal foundation for DEI programs to withstand external pressure: Ensure each initiative is built on Title VII–compliant criteria and supported by business-driven objectives. Programs that are clearly lawful and well-documented are harder for regulators to target and easier for companies to defend without retreat.
    
3. Prepare a coordinated response plan for coercive regulatory demands: Develop protocols for escalating, challenging, or refusing conditions that fall outside an agency’s statutory mandate. This includes legal review, board engagement, and communication strategies to avoid appearing to capitulate under pressure—critical for both governance integrity and reputational protection.

See also: FCC Pressures Companies to Drop DEI in Exchange for Merger Approval (Issue 21)