WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

Omnicom–IPG Merger Triggers Sweeping Benefit Cuts, Deep Restructuring, and New Compliance Constraints Following Closing

• EXCLUSIVE: How Omnicom Stole Christmas Week And Nixed Other Perks From IPG’s Benefits Package

Days after the $13-billion Omnicom–IPG merger officially closed on November 26, employees across the newly combined company are confronting internal changes that extend far beyond the headline layoffs and network consolidations. Omnicom moved quickly to standardize benefits across the unified organization, resulting in the elimination of several long-standing IPG perks — including Christmas Week office closures, additional paid holidays, enhanced family-leave programs, sabbaticals, and commuter benefits. The abrupt shift has unsettled employees who expected a more gradual integration, particularly given IPG’s historically robust workplace policies.

This update follows the concerns we first covered in Issue 32, when early merger filings and regulatory disclosures flagged potential limits on corporate free speech and advertiser discretion. Those concerns were borne out in the FTC’s final order, which prohibits Omnicom/IPG from considering media outlets’ political or ideological content — including DEI commitments, journalistic-standards ratings, or classifications such as “misinformation” or “bias” — when directing ad spend unless explicitly instructed by clients. The order also restricts the use of non–client-initiated blacklists and whitelists and appoints an external monitor authorized to receive complaints from third parties.

The operational impact is substantial. Approximately 10,000 roles have been eliminated since the transaction was announced, with about 4,000 cut immediately upon closing. Major creative networks — including FCB, DDB, and MullenLowe — have been folded into Omnicom-led structures, leaving the combined entity with three creative networks and six media networks. Leadership is also weighted heavily toward Omnicom executives: eight of nine division CEOs come from Omnicom, and only three of fifteen top leadership roles are held by women. As Omnicom targets $750 million in projected annual cost synergies, the most visible effects of the merger are now emerging inside the organization — in reduced benefits, restructured teams, and new compliance constraints governing media-buying practices.

See also: Omnicom–IPG Merger Raises Alarms Over Limits on Corporate Free Speech (Issue 32)

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

Human-Resources Giant Found Liable in $11.5 M Race Discrimination & Retaliation Verdict 

• SHRM, the world's largest HR group, has been hit with an $11.5 million verdict in a racial discrimination lawsuit 

OVERVIEW

On December 5, 2025, a federal jury in Colorado returned an $11.5 million verdict against the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by former employee Rehab Mohamed. Court records show the jury awarded approximately $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, finding that SHRM had unlawfully discriminated against Mohamed because of her race and retaliated against her after she raised internal concerns.

The case centered on allegations that Mohamed, who served in a senior learning and development role, was subjected to differential treatment compared with white colleagues and faced escalating workplace hostility after reporting those concerns to leadership and HR. SHRM denied wrongdoing during the trial and argued that its actions were based on legitimate performance-related considerations.

Following the verdict, SHRM stated that it intends to appeal, calling the outcome inconsistent with the evidence presented and reiterating that it “does not tolerate discrimination of any kind.”

The decision comes just weeks after SHRM faced separate industry criticism regarding programming choices at its annual Inclusion Conference—a reputational controversy previously covered in Issue 40.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The verdict against SHRM arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race and protects employees from retaliation for opposing or reporting such discrimination. By awarding damages on both the discrimination and retaliation claims, the jury found that race was an unlawful factor in SHRM’s treatment of Rehab Mohamed and that adverse actions followed her complaints about that treatment.

The judgment includes $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, reflecting a determination that SHRM’s conduct met the legal standard for punitive liability—acting with malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights. While large punitive awards in single-plaintiff employment cases are not unprecedented, such awards are typically subject to post-trial motions and potential review under statutory and constitutional constraints.

A notable feature of the case is the court’s treatment of SHRM’s position as an authority on human-resources best practices. Before trial, SHRM sought to bar references to its HR expertise, arguing that such evidence would unfairly hold it to a higher standard than other employers. The court denied that motion, ruling that SHRM’s asserted HR expertise was integral to the case and could not reasonably be excluded. This allowed the plaintiff to present evidence and argument about how SHRM’s internal handling of her complaints compared with the standards it promotes publicly. Mohamed’s counsel later stated that the jury had listened closely to the evidence and that the verdict would send a broader message to workplaces nationwide.

SHRM has stated that it strongly disagrees with the outcome and intends to appeal to higher courts. Until post-trial and appellate proceedings conclude, the judgment stands as a significant application of Title VII standards to an organization that positions itself as a national authority on workplace practices.

BRIDGE POV

The SHRM verdict underscores a central principle: no organization is exempt from the obligations of federal civil-rights law, including those positioned as standard-setters for workplace practice. When a human-resources authority faces a finding of race discrimination and retaliation, it becomes a reminder that policies, training, and stated values carry little weight if internal systems do not reliably protect employees who raise concerns.

The court’s decision to permit evidence about SHRM’s claimed expertise also highlights an emerging dynamic for all employers — especially those with public commitments to workplace culture, compliance, or equity. When an institution asserts leadership on HR standards, investor trust, or employee experience, its own practices may be assessed against that benchmark. In an environment of heightened scrutiny, governance frameworks must function not just aspirationally but operationally, ensuring that reporting channels, investigations, and accountability mechanisms consistently reflect the standards leaders articulate externally.

The case is a signal that reputational authority and legal compliance are increasingly intertwined. Institutions that promote expertise in people management, culture, or inclusion will be expected to demonstrate those principles in practice, with lapses carrying significant legal and organizational consequences.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reassess Internal Reporting and Investigation Protocols: Ensure that complaint-handling processes—particularly for discrimination and retaliation—are documented, timely, and consistent across business units. Conduct independent audits of recent investigations to confirm that findings and corrective actions align with stated policies and legal expectations.
2. Align Public Commitments With Internal Practice: Organizations that publish standards on culture, ethics, or inclusion should map those commitments against their actual procedures and managerial behaviors. Where gaps appear, strengthen training, oversight, and manager accountability to reduce exposure to claims that stated values do not match lived experience.
3. Strengthen Leadership Visibility on Anti-Retaliation Protections: Retaliation remains one of the most frequently alleged violations under federal employment law. Executive teams should reinforce anti-retaliation expectations through direct communication, refresh training for managers on prohibited conduct, and ensure that HR, legal, and compliance functions coordinate consistently when handling protected activity.
   
   

See also: SHRM Faces Credibility Crisis as Internal Turmoil, Retreat from Equity, and DEI Backlash Undercut Its Role as HR’s Standard-Setter (Issue 40)

COURTS & LITIGATION

Civil-Rights Challenge Filed Against Hispanic Scholarship Fund Over Eligibility Criteria

• Group sues Hispanic Scholarship Fund for excluding non-Hispanic students  

OVERVIEW

On December 3, 2025, the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER)—the organization founded and led by Edward Blum, the conservative architect behind the Supreme Court decisions that overturned affirmative action in college admissions—filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the eligibility requirements of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund’s (HSF) flagship HSF Scholars Program.

The lawsuit alleges that the program’s heritage-based eligibility criteria constitute unlawful race and national-origin discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which applies to entities receiving federal financial assistance. AAER contends that limiting eligibility to applicants who identify as Hispanic or Latino excludes qualified students who do not meet those definitions and amounts to impermissible racial and ethnic classifications.

HSF administers a broad portfolio of scholarships, many of which are open to all students. The programs challenged in the lawsuit, however, include cultural or heritage-based criteria designed to support students who identify with Hispanic or Latino communities. AAER argues that such requirements are incompatible with federal civil-rights standards when applied in programs funded by, or affiliated with institutions funded by, the federal government. HSF has not yet issued a detailed public response to the lawsuit, which is currently pending in federal court.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The lawsuit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights challenges the Hispanic Scholarship Fund’s criteria under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. AAER argues that heritage-based eligibility requirements operate as racial or ethnic classifications and therefore violate Title VI when applied to scholarship programs that receive federal funding directly or through institutional partnerships.

Title VI allows the use of race-neutral approaches to broaden access for underrepresented groups. Although the Supreme Court’s decisions in the affirmative action cases addressed university admissions rather than private scholarship programs, those rulings have influenced how some organizations assess the legal risk of any criteria that reference race or ethnicity. AAER’s complaint extends that reasoning by asserting that heritage-based requirements function as racial classifications subject to Title VI’s restrictions whenever federal funds are implicated

The case also raises questions about how federal agencies interpret Title VI obligations for nonprofit organizations that administer scholarships connected to federally funded institutions. If the Office for Civil Rights or the Department of Justice determines that the program meets Title VI’s “federally assisted” threshold, HSF’s criteria may be evaluated under the same statutory standards applied to educational institutions. At this stage, OCR has only acknowledged receipt of the complaint, and no determination has been made on whether a formal investigation will proceed.

Until a court rules on the merits or federal agencies issue guidance, the lawsuit will test the boundaries of Title VI’s applicability to heritage-based scholarship programs and the degree to which recent affirmative action decisions shape broader civil-rights enforcement.

BRIDGE POV

The AAER lawsuit reflects a growing effort to extend the legal strategy that dismantled affirmative action into areas far beyond the Supreme Court’s rulings — including private scholarship and opportunity programs that were not addressed by those decisions. While the complaint invokes Title VI, it relies on an untested theory that heritage-based eligibility is equivalent to the race-conscious admissions practices struck down in Students for Fair Admissions. At this stage, no court has endorsed that view, and the legal framework governing scholarships remains unsettled.

This challenge highlights a broader pattern: attempts to use civil-rights statutes originally enacted to expand access as instruments to restrict programs designed to support communities that have faced persistent barriers to educational attainment. The lawsuit does not reflect a shift in Title VI itself but rather a strategy to reshape its meaning through litigation. Institutions should recognize that although these suits generate headlines, they often rely on aggressive interpretations that courts may not ultimately adopt.

For leaders who administer scholarships, talent pipelines, or philanthropic initiatives, the moment calls for clarity, not retrenchment. Programs aimed at expanding opportunity can continue to operate effectively and legally, but they must be anchored in race-neutral, need-driven rationales that withstand scrutiny while still advancing their mission.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reaffirm Mission While Ensuring Compliance: Organizations should continue pursuing access and equity goals but confirm that program structures are grounded in race-neutral criteria tied to documented need. This strengthens both impact and legal resilience without ceding ground to untested legal theories.
    
2. Prepare for Strategic, Not Settled, Litigation: Treat lawsuits like the AAER challenge as attempts to reshape the law rather than reflections of current standards. Work with counsel to assess exposure while avoiding unnecessary program rollbacks based on claims that courts have not adopted. in response to ideological pressures.
    
3. Strengthen Documentation of Program Purpose: Ensure that eligibility criteria, selection methods, and outcome goals are clearly supported by data on educational barriers, attainment gaps, or community need. Well-documented rationales help demonstrate that opportunity programs serve legitimate, non-discriminatory objectives.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS & FEDERAL POLICY

Supreme Court to Review Trump-Era Order That Seeks to End Automatic Citizenship for U.S.-Born Children 

• Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship 

OVERVIEW

On December 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review Executive Order 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, issued by Trump on January 20, 2025. The order directs federal agencies to end the long-standing practice of granting automatic U.S. citizenship at birth to children born in the United States whose parents are undocumented immigrants or temporary residents.

Multiple federal courts blocked the order shortly after its issuance, finding that it likely conflicts with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and more than a century of Supreme Court precedent affirming that, with limited exceptions, individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens at birth.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a set of consolidated challenges brought by civil-rights organizations, impacted families, and several states. Petitioners argue that the executive branch lacks authority to redefine constitutional birthright citizenship and that the order would create significant uncertainty for families, states, and federal immigration systems. The Department of Justice, defending the order, contends that prior interpretations of the Citizenship Clause have been overly broad and that the executive branch has discretion to clarify its application through regulation.

By agreeing to hear the challenge this term, the Court will decide whether the executive branch has the authority to redefine “birthright citizenship” — a constitutional guarantee long upheld under precedent such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Oral arguments are expected during the Court’s spring term, with a decision anticipated by June. Nationwide injunctions blocking implementation of the order remain in effect pending the Court’s review.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Executive Order 14160 raises a fundamental constitutional question: whether the executive branch has the authority to reinterpret or narrow the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “all persons born” in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens at birth. For more than 125 years, the governing precedent has been United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in which the Supreme Court held that nearly all children born on U.S. soil—including those born to noncitizen parents—are citizens at birth.

Lower federal courts have uniformly blocked the order, concluding that the executive branch cannot alter constitutional birthright citizenship through regulation or directive, and that the order likely conflicts with well-established Supreme Court precedent.

The consolidated challenges before the Supreme Court also address the limits of presidential authority under the Take Care Clause, which requires the president to faithfully execute existing law. Petitioners argue that narrowing birthright citizenship amounts to revising the Constitution and exceeds executive power. They further contend that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor related federal statutes authorize agencies to impose parent-based restrictions on citizenship at birth.

By agreeing to hear the case, the Court will determine not only whether Executive Order 14160 is valid but also the extent to which constitutional guarantees may be clarified—or constrained—through executive action. Until the Court issues a ruling, nationwide injunctions remain in effect, and the order has no legal force.

BRIDGE POV

The Supreme Court’s decision to review Executive Order 14160 marks a significant constitutional moment. Birthright citizenship has been interpreted consistently for more than a century, and lower courts’ uniform rejection of the order reflects the stability of that doctrine. The question now before the Court is not whether the Constitution can be amended by executive directive—it cannot—but whether the Court will reinterpret the scope of the Citizenship Clause in a way that narrows a protection historically understood to apply to nearly all children born on U.S. soil.

For institutions, the immediate environment remains unchanged: existing definitions of citizenship continue to govern hiring, enrollment, verification, and access to federally funded programs. The priority is maintaining clarity and consistency around current law. More broadly, the case illustrates how constitutional questions increasingly arise through executive action, requiring leaders to recognize the distinction between executive authority and judicial authority in determining the meaning of constitutional provisions.

The case also presents a defining test of institutional boundaries: the Supreme Court must decide whether to reaffirm long-standing precedent, including Wong Kim Ark (1898), or to accept an executive interpretation that would substantially narrow a constitutional guarantee without an amendment or act of Congress. While the Court cannot change the Constitution, it can change how the Constitution is interpreted—and that interpretive power has immediate and far-reaching consequences for individuals, institutions, and systems that depend on stable definitions of citizenship.

If the Court were to alter the standard, the implications would extend across documentation, eligibility, and compliance systems. But until a decision is issued, institutions should rely on existing law and avoid disruptions to established processes.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reinforce Compliance With Existing Citizenship Standards: Ensure HR, admissions, and compliance teams apply current federal definitions of birthright citizenship consistently and without deviation. Communicate internally that no legal changes have taken effect and that existing verification requirements remain fully in force.
    
2. Monitor Litigation Developments Through Counsel: Direct legal or government-affairs teams to track the Supreme Court proceedings and assess potential implications only if the Court issues a ruling that changes the governing standard. Avoid making anticipatory operational adjustments unless and until the law changes.
    
3. Prepare Clear, Reassuring Communications for Impacted Communities: Given the visibility of the case, employees, students, and families may have questions. Provide fact-based guidance affirming that current citizenship rules remain unchanged and that the organization will maintain compliance with federal law while supporting individuals who may be concerned about the litigation.

FEDERAL FUNDING & OVERSIGHT

Justice Department Ends Investigations Into Systemic Racism and Sexism Under Federal Funding Rules 

• Justice Department Will No Longer Investigate Claims of Systemic Racism, Sexism

OVERVIEW

On December 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it will no longer pursue investigations into systemic racism or sexism under federal civil-rights statutes governing recipients of federal funding. The Department stated that future inquiries under Title VI, Title IX, and related laws will focus exclusively on intentional discrimination, ending the longstanding use of disparate-impact analysis to assess policies that produce discriminatory effects without explicit discriminatory purpose.

As reported in Issue 10, the administration’s executive order on “unlawful discrimination” signaled an intent to curtail disparate-impact liability across federal agencies. That direction became more concrete in the fall, when the EEOC — as covered in Issue 33 — formally abandoned disparate-impact review in employment cases, breaking with more than fifty years of enforcement practice. DOJ’s announcement extends this approach to federally funded programs more broadly.

The shift departs from prior enforcement frameworks, which allowed agencies to initiate compliance reviews based on statistical disparities or systemic patterns. DOJ confirmed that several pending reviews will be closed and that new investigations will require evidence of discriminatory intent before opening. Civil-rights groups and state officials have warned that the change may limit federal oversight in areas such as school discipline, environmental justice, and public benefits administration. DOJ stated that the revised approach is intended to align enforcement with statutory and constitutional requirements.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

DOJ’s decision to end investigations into systemic racism and sexism reflects a shift from effects-based enforcement to a strictly intent-based standard under federal funding statutes. Under Title VI and Title IX, federal agencies have long relied on disparate-impact analysis in compliance reviews to determine whether facially neutral policies produced discriminatory outcomes, even where discriminatory purpose was not alleged. Although the Supreme Court has held that Title VI itself permits only claims of intentional discrimination, agencies historically incorporated disparate-impact standards through regulation and administrative enforcement — a practice sustained across multiple administrations.

By discontinuing disparate-impact review, DOJ narrows civil-rights enforcement to cases in which evidence shows that decision-makers acted with discriminatory purpose. This aligns with recent executive orders characterizing disparate-impact analysis as inconsistent with statutory text, but diverges from decades of agency practice that treated statistical disparities and systemic patterns as sufficient grounds for investigation.

The change also affects interagency civil-rights oversight. DOJ has traditionally served as the central coordinator for Title VI enforcement and litigation across federal agencies. Under the new approach, agencies may face limitations in initiating or sustaining systemic reviews where discriminatory intent cannot be established, effectively reducing the scope of federal intervention in areas such as education, health services, housing, and environmental justice.

Pending investigations initiated under prior guidance are subject to closure, and entities receiving federal funds will encounter a higher evidentiary threshold before federal review is opened. The underlying statutory framework remains unchanged, but DOJ’s interpretation alters how enforcement will be applied unless or until future guidance, regulations, or court decisions modify the standard.

BRIDGE POV

The Justice Department’s decision to end investigations into systemic racism and sexism significantly narrows federal civil-rights enforcement at a time when institutions rely on clear standards to evaluate risk and maintain compliance. Disparate-impact analysis has long served as a foundational tool for identifying discriminatory effects in federally funded programs, even where intent is not evident. By shifting to an intent-only model, DOJ has closed off a primary mechanism through which systemic inequities have historically been examined and corrected.

The immediate consequence is not a change in statutory obligations but a change in how those obligations will be interpreted and enforced. The absence of federal disparate-impact review does not eliminate exposure to litigation, reputational harm, or state-level enforcement. Instead, it places greater responsibility on organizations to detect and address disparities proactively rather than relying on federal investigations to signal emerging risks.

This moment underscores an essential point: when federal enforcement recedes, the burden of governance shifts inward. Institutions must ensure that their policies, practices, and outcomes align with their stated commitments and comply with the law, even when federal agencies step back from systemic oversight.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Conduct Internal Equity and Compliance Assessments: Without federal disparate-impact reviews, organizations should take a proactive approach. Assess policies and outcomes for unintended disparities, especially in areas tied to federal funding such as admissions, financial aid, service delivery, workforce programs, and benefits administration.
   
   
2.  Strengthen Documentation of Decision-Making Processes: In an intent-based enforcement environment, maintaining clear, consistent, and well-documented decision-making processes is critical. Ensure that rationales for key policies and decisions are recorded and that staff understand how to apply them consistently.
   
   
3. Monitor State and Private Enforcement Trends: As federal agencies narrow their role, states and private litigants may increase scrutiny of practices that produce disparate outcomes. Stay attuned to evolving state civil-rights standards and case law, and review organizational practices for areas of heightened exposure.

See also: Trump Issued an Executive Order on Disparate Impact Liability (Issue 10); EEOC Abandons Disparate Impact Enforcement (Issue 33)

State Department Restores Times New Roman as Official Typeface Across All Communications

• Font of ‘wasteful’ s state department orders return to Times New Roman

The State Department has directed all bureaus to revert to Times New Roman for official communications, ending the accessibility-focused font standards adopted in recent years. While the change carries no legal effect for outside institutions, it reflects a broader pattern of administrative reversals of inclusion-oriented policies and accessibility guidelines.