CIVIL RIGHTS

Organizers Behind Target Boycott End their Effort

• Boycott Over Target's Diversity Pullback Ends, Activists Say

On March 11, 2026, Rev. Jamal Harrison Bryant announced that his faith-based coalition is ending the boycott campaign launched after the retailer scaled back certain DEI initiatives. Bryant said the decision followed recent discussions with company executives and progress the coalition believes the company has made. 

Target’s new chief executive officer, Michael Fiddelke, acknowledged in a town hall last month that the Minneapolis-based chain had lost trust with shoppers and employees and pledged to rebuild that connection. Bryant noted that community leaders will continue monitoring the company’s actions.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Florida Legislature Passes Bill Banning Local Government DEI Programs

• Ron DeSantis May Soon Sign Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill That Could Ban St. Patrick’s Day Events 

OVERVIEW

On March 10, 2026, the Florida Legislature passed SB 1134, legislation that would prohibit counties and municipalities from funding, promoting, or taking official action related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The bill defines DEI as training, programming, or activities implemented with reference to race, color, sex, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation. The measure now goes to Governor Ron DeSantis, who is expected to sign it before the legislative session concludes March 13.

The legislation prohibits local governments from establishing DEI offices, employing DEI officers, or spending public funds on initiatives that fall within the bill’s definition. It also allows residents to file lawsuits against local governments for alleged violations and provides that local officials who authorize prohibited activities could face removal from office by the governor.

Local officials raised concerns during the legislative process about the breadth of the bill’s language, warning it could affect publicly funded cultural events or community programs tied to ethnic or identity-based groups, including municipal celebrations such as St. Patrick’s Day or local workforce initiatives designed to support underrepresented communities.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

SB 1134 uses state preemption authority to restrict the ability of Florida counties and municipalities to create, fund, or administer programs defined in the statute as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Under the legislation, local governments would be prohibited from establishing DEI offices, employing DEI officers, or using public funds for programs, training, or activities implemented with reference to race, color, sex, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation, subject to limited exceptions outlined in the law.

The statute also establishes enforcement mechanisms allowing residents to bring civil actions against local governments for alleged violations. Local officials who authorize prohibited activities could be subject to removal from office by the governor, creating potential legal exposure for both municipal governments and individual officeholders.

During the legislative process, some lawmakers and local officials raised legal concerns about the scope of the bill’s language and its potential interaction with Florida’s constitutional “home rule” provisions, which grant municipalities and counties authority over local affairs. Questions were also raised about the breadth of the statutory definition of DEI and how it may be interpreted in practice when applied to local government programs and events.

If signed by the governor, the law would apply statewide to counties and municipalities and would take effect as provided in the legislation.

BRIDGE POV

While SB 1134 applies directly to government entities, its impact could extend into the broader ecosystem of partnerships between companies, municipalities, and community organizations.

Companies that collaborate with cities on workforce programs, cultural events, supplier development initiatives, and community investments that include diversity or inclusion objectives may need to restructure those partnerships or find alternate ways to support the communities they serve.

Organizations that manage this environment most effectively will treat inclusion not as a single initiative, but as a governance and compliance discipline integrated across legal, HR, public affairs, and community engagement functions.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Review Municipal Partnerships: Assess partnerships with Florida municipalities that involve workforce programs, cultural events, supplier development initiatives, or community investments tied to diversity or identity-based groups.
   
   
2. Reassess Program Structure: Where initiatives rely on municipal sponsorship or funding, evaluate whether those programs should be restructured as private-sector initiatives or supported through alternative partnerships.
   
   
3. Strengthen Governance Alignment: Ensure legal, HR, public affairs, and community engagement teams are aligned on how inclusion-related initiatives are structured and implemented across jurisdictions with different policy frameworks.

COURTS & LITIGATION

Court Tests EEOC Subpoena Power in UPenn Antisemitism Probe

• Judge to Weigh Limiting EEOC’s UPenn Jewish Staff List Request 

OVERVIEW

On March 10, 2026, a federal court began reviewing a dispute over the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s authority to enforce a subpoena issued as part of an investigation into alleged antisemitism at the University of Pennsylvania.

The EEOC opened the investigation following complaints alleging that Jewish employees were subjected to a hostile work environment in connection with campus protests and activity related to the Israel–Hamas conflict. As part of the investigation, the agency issued a subpoena seeking documents and information from the university related to the complaints.

The University of Pennsylvania has challenged the subpoena in federal court, arguing that the request is overly broad and exceeds the scope of the EEOC’s investigative authority. The case now places the agency’s subpoena power and the limits of its investigative authority before the court.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The dispute centers on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to issue and enforce subpoenas during investigations of alleged workplace discrimination. Title VII permits the EEOC to require employers to produce documents and testimony that the agency considers relevant to determining whether unlawful employment practices may have occurred.

When an employer refuses to comply, the EEOC may petition a federal court to enforce the subpoena. Courts reviewing those petitions typically evaluate whether the agency is acting within its statutory authority and whether the requested information is reasonably relevant to the investigation.

In the University of Pennsylvania matter, the university is challenging the scope of the subpoena and arguing that the request exceeds the bounds of the EEOC’s investigative authority. The case also raises questions involving privacy and associational rights, as individuals connected to the investigation have argued that certain disclosures could implicate First Amendment protections related to participation in religious or advocacy groups.

BRIDGE POV

The University of Pennsylvania case illustrates how federal civil rights enforcement is increasingly intersecting with broader social and geopolitical tensions that are playing out inside workplaces and institutions.

Investigations involving allegations of antisemitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of religious or ethnic harassment are not occurring in isolation. They are often unfolding in environments where employees, students, and community members are simultaneously navigating deeply personal political and cultural debates.

That dynamic places institutions in a complex position. Compliance with federal civil rights law remains non-negotiable, but the way investigations are conducted and information is gathered can also raise concerns about privacy, association, and community trust. The organizations best positioned to manage those moments are those that approach discrimination complaints with clear governance, consistent policies, and disciplined leadership.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Understand EEOC Investigative Authority: Ensure legal and HR teams are familiar with the EEOC’s subpoena powers under Title VII and the standards courts apply when reviewing enforcement disputes.
   
   
2. Prepare Clear Investigation Protocols: Establish internal protocols for responding to federal civil rights investigations, including processes for document production, employee communications, and coordination between legal and HR leadership.
   
   
3. Manage Sensitive Workplace Contexts: When workplace complaints intersect with political, religious, or geopolitical issues, ensure internal responses are guided by established anti-harassment policies and federal nondiscrimination requirements.

See also: Columbia University Settles with DOJ and EEOC Over Antisemitism (Issue 23); EEOC Takes Action on Religious Discrimination While Transgender Protections Face Uncertainty (Issue 20)