ABOUT PROJECT FORWARD

Led by BRIDGE, Project FORWARD is a cross-industry initiative, designed to chart our collective path forward and meet the current moment head-on. In partnership with top experts in academia, law and our board members, we are dedicated to equipping, educating, and empowering leaders in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), marketing, and business to continue to drive inclusive innovation and sustainable growth.

 

Every Friday, Project FORWARD provides critical updates on executive orders (EO) and legislative developments, featuring legal interpretations from Stacy Hawkins, Esq., Diversity & Employment Practices Consultant and Rutgers Professor of Law, and Jessica Golden Cortes, Partner, Labor + Employment Group, Davis+Gilbert LLP. We will also include the BRIDGE POV and tangible actions to consider.*

 

We encourage our community to remain informed and proactive. If you have questions or insights you’d like to share, please email [email protected].

 

FOR PAST ISSUES OF PROJECT FORWARD WEEKLY GUIDANCE PLEASE VISIT HERE.

 

*These Project FORWARD updates should not be construed as legal advice or counsel. They are for educational and instructive purposes only, to aid our understanding about how best to actively continue our mission in response to this moment. 

UPDATE ON PREVIOUSLY ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS

OVERVIEW

For continued reference these are the EOs targeting DEI and LGBTQ+ protections that have been issued:

• Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing: Executive Order # 14151
• Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Executive Order # 14173
• Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government: Executive Order #14168

 

As of today’s issue, there have been no further rulings on the above EOs. The latest update remains as published in last week’s issue: On March 15, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals panel reinstated portions of Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and suspended the injunction issued by the lower court.

 

BRIDGE POV

At this time, while the current focus has shifted, there are strategic actions organizations can take to safeguard their Diversity, Equity & Inclusion practices and mitigate risk. Additionally, though not directly tied to these EOs, there are emerging signals that offer deeper insight into this administration’s broader intentions that merit attention.
 

1. Beyond ensuring full compliance with existing laws, the most powerful way to mitigate risk is to broaden your inclusion efforts across the organization - intentionally tying them to business outcomes and marketplace impact.
2. Inclusion can be transformational in driving business growth, especially when activating historically untapped communities whose buying power continues to grow in scale and influence
3. Consider your inclusion maturity through a growth lens of how you see, serve and show up in the marketplace

EEOC ISSUES LETTERS AND DEI “GUIDANCE”

OVERVIEW

• What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
• What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
• Letter to Acting Chair Lucas March 18 2025 

 

As a reminder on March 17, the Acting Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Andrea Lucas, issued letters to 20 law firms requesting detailed information of their diversity, equity and inclusion programs asserting concerns of potential Title VII violations. The letters expressly target conduct involving race- or gender-based decision-making, or activities that classify, limit, or segregate employees in ways that could potentially deny certain groups—such as white or male employees—equal access to employment opportunities. 

 

As of March 26, 2025, the 20 law firms targeted by Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas's letters regarding their DEI programs have not publicly responded to the requests. They have until April 15 to respond to the EEOC.

 

In addition to the seven former EEOC Chairs and Commissioners issuing a two-page letter in response, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law released a statement condemning the actions of Lucas:

“We condemn Acting Chair Lucas’ targeting of 20 named law firms working to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in their workplaces. Acting Chair Lucas does not have the authority alone to act or speak on behalf of the EEOC as an official body. Official EEOC action requires a quorum of the five-member Commission, which currently does not exist after Trump fired two Commissioners, breaking with precedent and possibly the law. 

 

While the rules allow individual EEOC Commissioners to initiate a charge of discrimination on their own initiative, all charges must be made under penalty of perjury. This prevents commissioners from initiating frivolous investigations or abusing the legal process. Lucas’ letters are not charges of discrimination. As such, they carry no more weight of authority than if they had been written on a cocktail napkin by any member of the public.”

 

And just yesterday, more than 50 state, local and specialty bar associations, including the American Bar Association issued a joint statement to “defend the rule of law and reject efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession.”

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

It is important to note:

1. These letters do not initiate formal administrative or legal proceedings against the law firms. In order to initiate formal administrative or legal proceedings against any employer, the EEOC would first need to file a charge of discrimination against the employer, or to intervene in a charge of discrimination filed by an employee/complainant. Since neither of these antecedent steps appears to have occurred, it is questionable whether these letters constitute a legitimate exercise of the Commissioner’s enforcement power under Title VII. 
    
2. Former EEOC officials have criticized the letters and urged Lucas to withdraw them expressing “grave concerns” that this order exceeds the agency’s enforcement duties under law. 
    
3. Furthermore, the letter argues that the EEOC Acting Chair has exceeded her enforcement authority under Title VII and other agency guidance, by contravening existing agency guidance endorsing DEI efforts as a means of furthering compliance with Title VII, rather than as evidence of non-compliance with Title VII. In fact, the EEOC is unable to alter any existing agency guidance on this issue because the agency does not currently have the required quorum of Commissioners (a minimum of three of the five statutorily designated Commissioners must be present to constitute a quorum) that would allow it to undertake many of its regulatory functions, such as revoking, altering, or otherwise modifying agency guidance.
   
   Currently, due to Trump’s removal of two Democratic Commissioners shortly after his inauguration, the EEOC has only two Commissioners, which is less than a quorum. Although some work remains possible due to internal operating procedures that allow for routine work in the absence of a quorum (such as receiving and investigating charges of discrimination and issuing right-to-sue letters), much of the policy work of the EEOC is on hold until it has a quorum of Commissioners.

 

BRIDGE POV

While these tactics are designed to create fear and uncertainty, they also offer insight into how the administration is interpreting DEI, particularly in the context  of workplace practices. This understanding can be used to inform how organizations can continue their DEI efforts while carefully mitigating risk.  

 

1. The Civil Rights Act, and the legal protections it affords, remains unchanged - as always employers need to continue to uphold these protections when evaluating their diversity, equity and inclusion practices
2. The (acting) chair of the EEOC has limited authority - no member of the Commission can unilaterally change the EEOC’s longstanding position on diversity, equity and inclusion or any other agency guidance
3. Leaders should take a pragmatic approach and avoid reacting by arbitrarily eliminating their DEI practices - instead without stigma, they should apply the same rigor of evolving DEI as they do to other core business strategies: identify what’s working and what isn’t, strengthen its connection to business outcomes and mitigate risk.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Bar organizations’ statement in support of the rule of law

THE INTERSECTION OF IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION WITH COMBATTING ANTISEMITISM

OVERVIEW

• Protecting the American People Against Invasion: Executive Order # 14159
• Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats: Executive Order # 14161
• Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism: Executive Order #13899

 

Upon taking office on Jan 20, 2025 Trump issued a number of orders related to immigration, including orders Protecting the American People Against Invasion and Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. Like many of the other Executive Orders, the titles often obscure the true intent framing them under the guise of something more palatable or benign. 

 

Additionally, within Trump’s first few days in office he reaffirmed Executive Order 13899 to combat Antisemitism, issued in 2019, and directed additional measures to advance the policy.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The two above-mentioned orders relating to immigration call for a review of contracts, grants, and agreements between the federal government and “non-governmental organizations supporting or providing services, either directly or indirectly, to removable or illegal aliens.” 

 

In addition, the orders direct the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to identify all resources that may be used to ensure that all visa applicants, including F-1 and J-1 students, are “vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.” The administration also issued a directive repealing the Biden Administration’s “sensitive locations” policy, which prohibited raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection agents at schools and other protected areas. Given the Administration’s focus on immigration enforcement, institutions are encouraged to proactively support international students in maintaining visa compliance and coordinate with campus offices and safety teams to establish a clear, unified response plan in the event of an immigration enforcement action.

 

Additionally, the America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State executive order, which requires the State Department to align policies and programs to “put American and its interests first,” may impact international exchange programs and study abroad programs funded by the Department of State.

 

While business immigration policies have largely remained untouched thus far, this could shift. Trump has already signaled a return to strict immigration enforcement, including heightened scrutiny of foreign nationals and their employers as well as more rigorous "vetting" processes at U.S. Embassies and Consulates for foreign nationals obtaining visas abroad. Notably, his first administration attempted to overhaul the prevailing wage structure by significantly increasing employers’ wage obligations - a policy stance that may well surface over the next four years.

 

Compounding the issue however is the public rift within the Trump circle over the H-1B visa program particularly between the far-right and aligned tech allies. Though Trump previously criticized and temporarily banned the H-1B program during his first term, he has since reversed his stance, calling it a “great program.” This flip-flop has fueled internal conflict, as some see the visa system as undermining American workers, while others (ironically those against diversity, equity, inclusion) view it as essential to innovation and competitiveness.

 

This debate highlights the complex and evolving nature of the immigration policy and its potential impact on the tech industry and the broader economy. Concerns have been raised about equitable application of these and other policies suggesting that certain groups are being disproportionately targeted while others are being favored.

The Executive Order to combat Antisemitism sits at the intersection of immigration and civil rights policies, with immigration enforcement serving as one method of its implementation.

 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), in coordination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), has initiated an investigation into the University of California (UC) system over allegations of a hostile work environment as a result of antisemitism against Jewish employees, allegedly of Title VII’s prohibitions on race, national origin, and religious discrimination.

 

In furtherance of that Executive Order, Trump established a multi-agency Task Force tasked with gathering information and recommending actions to combat antisemitism. As part of this broader initiative, an investigation has been launched, aligning with recent statements from EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, who identified protecting workers from religious discrimination as a key priority. This mandate was echoed in a recent EEOC press release, which highlighted the agency’s collaboration with the DOJ to pursue coordinated enforcement efforts aimed at addressing antisemitism in the workplace.

 

Reports have emerged indicating that the administration is targeting college students with lawful immigrant status who publicly express support for Palestine by revoking their legal status and initiating deportation proceedings. 

 

Additionally, recent reports indicate that lawful individuals, including visa and green-card holders and international visitors have been detained at U.S. border crossings such as airports.

 

BRIDGE POV

The convergence of stringent immigration policies, civil rights considerations and allegations of antisemitism presents multifaceted challenges for businesses. Heightened immigration enforcement can impact workforce and workplace instability, particularly in industries reliant on immigrant labor and/or foreign nationals.

 

Simultaneously, businesses must navigate the complexities of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws while maintaining the delicate balance between compliance with federal mandates and respect for religious freedoms. Navigating these issues requires organizations to implement comprehensive policies and consistent values that uphold legal standards while fostering an inclusive work environment.

1. Work with all your employees who are Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) to ensure that all their documentation, identification and other proof of status is in order
2. Collaborate closely with your immigration counsel to establish clear guidelines so that immigrant employees understand their rights to ensure a smooth re-entry and ensure they have direct contact in the event they need assistance. For example:
   • U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers have the authority to question individuals about their immigration status when entering or leaving the United States.
   • For lawful permanent residents (LPRs), it’s advisable to carry your green card and a valid passport from your country of citizenship. While LPRs are generally required to answer questions establishing their identity and residency, refusal to respond to other inquiries may lead to delays but technically should not result in denial of entry acknowledging that everything is less predictable and uncertain at this moment.
   • Non-citizen visa holders and visitors should be prepared to answer officers’ questions, as refusal may lead to denial of entry.
   • It’s important to note that officers may not select individuals for questioning based on religion, race, national origin, gender, ethnicity, or political beliefs. If you feel your rights are being violated during the screening process, you can request to speak with a supervisor.
   • Carrying contact information for an attorney or legal services organization is also recommended
3. Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), Business Resource Groups (BRGs) or affinity groups, a vital component of a comprehensive Diversity, Equity and Inclusion strategy, provide much needed support to communities that are disproportionately affected by these policies
   • While these groups can be created in support of a specific community, it’s essential they remain open and accessible to all employees who wish to participate (establishing a code of conduct is acceptable)
4. Clear zero-tolerance policies against religious discrimination should be clearly documented and communicated to all employees. While the First Amendment protects individuals from government restrictions on speech, it does not extend to private employers, allowing them to regulate employee expression within the workplace. However, employers must navigate the nuanced legal landscape when considering disciplinary actions related to lawful conduct during non-working hours. That being said, the restated EO to combat Antisemitism could insinuate more freedoms to employers around this issue.
5. This policy and other EOs could signal additional policies to be put in place around religious discrimination to allegedly "protect" Christian Nationalists against LGTBQ+ policies and practices, reinforcing the need of strong DEI teams to support these intentionally marginalized communities

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

U.S. Justice Department Launches Investigation of University of California Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

 

EEOC Acting Chair Promises to Hold Accountable Universities and Colleges for Antisemitism on Campus Workplaces

HEADLINES TO WATCH CLOSELY

1. Over the last 24hrs, there has been a call, as outlined in Project 2025, to defund NPR and PBS
2. FCC threatens to block media mergers over DEI policies - like with other agencies there will likely be questions around scope and constitutionality

COMMUNITY EVENTS

BRIDGE invites everyone to join for our monthly Community Calls which take place on the last Thursday of every month, gathering DEI marketing, and business leaders committed to driving systemic change within our organizations and the industry at large.

 

Our next call is Thursday, April 24th from 12-1p ET.

BRIDGE25: FORWARD, our annual 2 1/2 day retreat will convene close to 200 of the top DEI, Marketing & Business Leaders at the stunning Seabird Resort overlooking the beach in Oceanside, CA, May 4-6.

Our commitment is to deliver and experience that will be unapologetically indelible, determined and audacious! 

 

Spots are limited so please don't wait to sign up!