Mitigate Risk, Lead with Clarity |
|
|---|
|
IN THIS ISSUE
ALSO INCLUDED |
|
|
|---|
|
PREVIOUSLY ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS | For continued reference these are the EOs targeting DEI and LGBTQ+ protections that have been issued: We will continue to monitor activities that relate to these EOs either directly or indirectly. |
|
|
|---|
|
| | | | | |
OVERVIEWOn January 22, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted 2–1 to rescind the Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace in its entirety. Chair Andrea Lucas and Commissioner Brittany Panuccio, both Republicans, voted in favor of rescission. Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, the Commission’s sole Democrat, voted in opposition. Prior to the vote, Lucas stated that the EEOC would continue to enforce prohibitions on unlawful harassment after the guidance is rescinded, as it did before the guidance was issued.
The rescinded guidance was adopted in April 2024 following an extensive notice-and-comment process and included more than 70 illustrative examples addressing prohibited harassment. In May 2025, a federal court in Texas vacated the guidance’s section addressing sexual orientation and gender identity, while the remainder of the guidance covering harassment based on race, religion, age, disability, and other protected characteristics remained in effect until the January 22 vote.
The decision follows a January 15, 2026 vote, also 2–1 along party lines, to rescind internal EEOC voting procedures adopted in January 2025. Those procedures had established minimum review periods for proposed Commission actions and allowed individual commissioners to elevate items for discussion before a vote. Former EEOC officials organized as EEO Leaders criticized that action, stating that it consolidates authority in the Chair and diminishes deliberation. The EEOC is statutorily designed as a five-member, bipartisan commission, though the January votes were taken with a quorum rather than a full complement of commissioners.
LEGAL INTERPRETATION Rescission of EEOC enforcement guidance does not change the text or legal standards of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which continues to prohibit workplace harassment based on protected characteristics. Enforcement guidance is not binding law, but it serves as the agency’s formal statement of how it interprets statutes, evaluates charges, and prioritizes enforcement. With the guidance withdrawn, the Commission no longer has an official, consolidated document articulating its approach to workplace harassment.
The withdrawal of the harassment guidance eliminates a reference point that employers, employees, investigators, and courts have relied on for clarity, including illustrative examples of prohibited conduct. While the EEOC retains authority to investigate and litigate harassment claims, future enforcement decisions will proceed without the framework previously provided by the guidance unless replacement materials are issued.
The rescission of the internal voting procedures affects Commission governance rather than substantive civil rights law. Those procedures had structured how commissioners reviewed and deliberated on agency actions. Their removal centralizes procedural discretion within the Chair, consistent with the Commission’s ability to operate by quorum, but alters internal checks that previously shaped decision-making processes.
BRIDGE POVThe rescission of EEOC harassment guidance does not change the responsibility employers have to prevent and address unlawful workplace harassment. The legal standards governing harassment have been in place for decades and continue to apply regardless of whether the agency maintains a guidance document.
Guidance provides clarity, not authority. Its removal does not lower the bar for employer conduct or alter what courts evaluate when harassment claims are brought. Organizations that treat rescission as permission to relax standards expose themselves to legal, operational, and reputational risk.
Harassment prevention has always been about systems, not documents. Companies that have invested in clear policies, effective reporting mechanisms, prompt investigations, and accountable leadership should not retreat from those practices simply because federal guidance has been withdrawn.
ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES Maintain Existing Harassment Standards and Processes: Continue to operate harassment policies, training, reporting, and investigation protocols consistent with Title VII and long-standing legal precedent. Rescission of guidance does not alter employer obligations to provide a workplace free from unlawful harassment.
Use Established Case Law as the Reference Point: Anchor decision-making in statutory requirements and judicial standards rather than agency guidance alone. Courts, not guidance documents, determine liability.
Reinforce Manager and Leadership Accountability: Ensure managers understand that expectations have not changed. Prompt response, documentation, and non-retaliation remain critical to both compliance and workplace trust.
See also: EEOC Moves to Rescind Harassment Guidance and Internal Voting Procedures (Issue 47) | | | | | |
|
|---|
|
| | | | | | OVERVIEWOn January 14, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Minnesota alleging that the state’s affirmative action requirements for public employment violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint challenges Minnesota laws and regulations that require state agencies to maintain affirmative action plans using race- and sex-based hiring goals and to document justification when selecting candidates who are not members of underrepresented groups.
The DOJ alleges that these requirements result in differential treatment based on protected characteristics prohibited under federal law. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement of the challenged provisions. The Attorney General designated the case as one of “general public importance” under Title VII.
Minnesota is the second state targeted under the DOJ’s affirmative action enforcement initiative. In 2025, the DOJ opened a civil rights investigation into Rhode Island’s state affirmative action hiring policies. That matter remains under investigation, and no lawsuit has been filed. LEGAL INTERPRETATIONTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and sex. Federal law permits limited voluntary affirmative action in public employment, but such measures are subject to judicial scrutiny under Title VII’s restrictions on race- and sex-based employment practices.
The DOJ’s lawsuit challenges whether Minnesota’s affirmative action requirements comply with Title VII, alleging that the state’s use of hiring goals and documentation requirements results in impermissible differential treatment based on protected characteristics. The case was brought under Title VII’s “general public importance” provision, which authorizes the Attorney General to initiate litigation directly against a state employer.
Minnesota officials have stated publicly that the state intends to defend its affirmative action statutes as lawful under both state and federal law. As of the filing of the lawsuit, Minnesota has not yet submitted a formal response in court. BRIDGE POV Minnesota’s affirmative action statutes were adopted to address access to public employment and to respond to disparities identified through workforce data. The statutes have been in place for decades and operate as part of the state’s employment framework rather than as ad hoc or newly adopted measures.
The current challenge reframes these long-standing provisions as presumptively unlawful, despite their continued operation alongside federal civil rights law. Whether and how these statutes align with Title VII is now a question before the courts, not one resolved by enforcement assertion alone.
Organizations should distinguish between legal review and wholesale retreat. The existence of litigation does not negate the underlying objectives of fair access and equal opportunity that have historically informed public-sector employment policy.
ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES - Confirm Legal Foundations, Not Political Signals: Review affirmative action and DEI-related practices against existing civil rights law, not shifting enforcement narratives. Ensure programs are documented, narrowly implemented, and clearly tied to equal opportunity objectives.
- Protect Lawful Inclusion in Practice, Not Just Policy: Maintain inclusive hiring, promotion, and workforce development efforts that are legally permissible and operationally sound. Avoid unnecessary changes driven by pressure rather than legal requirement.
- Align Leadership on What Will Not Change: Ensure executive, legal, and HR leaders share a common understanding of the organization’s commitments to fairness and access. Consistency in decision-making and communication matters most when external scrutiny increases.
See also: Department of Justice Opens Investigation into Rhode Island's Employment Practices (Issue 16) | | | | | |
EXECUTIVE ORDERS & FEDERAL POLICY |
| | | | | | OVERVIEWObservances of Martin Luther King Jr. Day in January 2026 occurred amid heightened national debate over civil rights enforcement and the legacy of the modern civil rights movement. Public commemorations, official statements, and educational programming across federal agencies, states, schools, and private institutions reflected differing interpretations of Dr. King’s legacy and its relevance to current civil rights policy.
Several federal agencies and state officials marked the holiday by emphasizing colorblind interpretations of civil rights law and opposing race-conscious policies, including affirmative action and DEI initiatives. At the same time, civil rights organizations, faith leaders, educators, and local governments used MLK Day events to underscore Dr. King’s advocacy for structural remedies to inequality and the ongoing role of government in enforcing civil rights protections.
The divergence was evident in public messaging, programming decisions, and in some cases the cancellation or reshaping of long-standing MLK Day events. The White House issued a formal Martin Luther King Jr. Day statement from Trump at approximately 8:15 p.m. Eastern Time, following public criticism earlier in the day, including statements from the NAACP. These contrasts highlighted broader tensions over how civil rights history is taught, commemorated, and applied in contemporary policy debates. LEGAL INTERPRETATIONFederal civil rights law does not prescribe how Martin Luther King Jr. Day must be observed, but it does govern the policies and actions that public institutions advance in the name of civil rights enforcement. Current disputes reflected in MLK Day observances center on the interpretation and application of statutes such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including Title VII, and the extent to which race-conscious measures remain permissible under federal law.
Differences in MLK Day messaging mirror ongoing legal debates over affirmative action, DEI initiatives, and the role of government in addressing structural inequality. Federal agencies retain discretion in how they frame civil rights enforcement priorities, provided their actions remain consistent with statutory authority and constitutional limits.
The varied treatment of MLK Day across institutions underscores the absence of legal consensus over how civil rights history should inform present-day policy. While commemoration itself is symbolic, the policies advanced alongside it remain subject to judicial review and statutory interpretation under existing civil rights law. BRIDGE POV Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood civil rights as a necessary correction. He saw them as a way to strengthen democracy, expand economic opportunity, and improve the institutions that shape daily life.
Efforts to portray civil rights or inclusion as harmful misunderstand both history and reality. Systems designed to be fair, inclusive, and accountable do not disadvantage one group to benefit another. They create conditions where institutions function as intended and opportunity is more broadly accessible.
Civil rights were never meant to be symbolic. They require action, structure, and sustained commitment. Dr. King called for progress rooted in strategy, not abstraction. That responsibility remains with today’s leaders.
ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES - Anchor Inclusion to Institutional Purpose: Ensure civil rights and inclusion efforts are tied directly to mission, performance, and accountability. Programs grounded in purpose are more durable than those framed as discretionary or cultural.
- Protect Historical Integrity in Policy and Practice: Be clear about the history that informs current civil rights frameworks. Avoid oversimplified narratives that detach today’s policies from the conditions they were designed to address.
Lead with Structure, Not Symbolism: Commemoration matters, but systems matter more. Invest in policies, processes, and governance that translate stated values into measurable outcomes across hiring, advancement, and access.
See also: Federal Enforcement Campaign Targets Corporate DEI as Legal Standards Remain Unchanged (Issue 46) | | | | | |
|
|---|
On January 21, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education formally withdrew its appeal of an August 15, 2025 federal court ruling that blocked the department from conditioning federal education funding on the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. The ruling invalidated a February 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which had warned schools and colleges that certain DEI-related practices could place federal funding at risk.
The federal court found that the Department exceeded its statutory authority and raised First Amendment concerns by attempting to extend the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard—which addressed admissions practices—into a broader prohibition on DEI programming across federally funded education. The court issued a partial injunction in April 2025, preventing enforcement of the guidance while litigation proceeded.
The dismissal of the appeal leaves the district court’s ruling in place. The February 14, 2025 guidance therefore remains unenforceable, and the Department of Education may not rely on that guidance to condition federal education funding.
See also: Federal Judge Strikes Trump-Era Anti-DEI Directives (Issue 26) |
|
|
|---|
|
One year after the issuance of the Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity executive order on January 21, 2025, its practical effects are more visible than its legal reach. The order did not amend civil rights statutes or alter Supreme Court precedent. It did revoke long-standing federal directives, including Executive Order 11246, and reset how federal agencies approach affirmative action, compliance, and oversight.
Over the past year, that reset has been reflected most clearly in enforcement posture and process. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has narrowed its use of disparate impact enforcement, while agencies administering federal contracts and grants have relied on revised certifications and compliance language tied to the order. Many institutions have responded through internal reviews, pauses, or program revisions driven by uncertainty rather than changes in underlying law.
What has remained constant is the legal framework itself. Title VI, Title VII, and related civil rights statutes continue to permit lawful, narrowly tailored inclusion measures. The lasting impact of the executive order has not been the creation of new legal standards, but the way enforcement signals, procedural leverage, and ambiguity have influenced organizational decision-making over the past year. |
|
|
|---|
|
COMMUNITY EVENTS | Please join BRIDGE on February 12 in New York City for The System for Inclusive Growth Roadshow.
This FREE half-day, in-person executive briefing brings together senior leaders across brands, agencies, and platforms to explore how inclusion can be applied as a measurable growth capability, embedded into the systems that drive performance, reduce exposure, and support long-term business outcomes.
Agenda details can be found here or feel free to register here. | | | | | That conversation continues and expands at our annual retreat, BRIDGE26: Beyond the Line, taking place May 3–5 in Newport Beach.
BRIDGE26 is where leaders come together to sharpen how they think, how they decide, and how they build growth capabilities that endure. | | |
|
|
|---|
ABOUT PROJECT FORWARD | | | | | | | Led by BRIDGE, Project FORWARD is a weekly leadership briefing that distills the most consequential legal, political, and reputational developments shaping DEI and inclusive growth. Each issue provides legal interpretation, BRIDGE’s point of view, and actionable strategies to help leaders safeguard trust, anticipate risk and make credible value-based decisions in a volatile environment.
Who it’s for: CMOs, CCOs, Chief DEI Officers, GCs, Heads of Risk, CHROs, and senior leaders across DEI, marketing, brand, policy, and legal functions. 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. | | | | | |
|
|
|
|---|
 | |
|  | |
| |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
|
| | 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. |
| | |
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
