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

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 Opportunity: Executive Order # 14173
• Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government: Executive Order #14168

 

SUPREME COURT INVALIDATES JURISDICTION FOR INJUNCTION RELATED TO EXECUTIVE ORDER #14173

 

OVERVIEW

On April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, granted the administration’s request to lift a temporary restraining order and proceed with canceling approximately $65 million in teacher training grants while there is ongoing litigation on this issue. This directive was included in Executive Order #14173 revoking  “equity grants and contracts” including those associated with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. 

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Eight Democratic-led states—California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin—filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s cancellation of these teacher training grants. The suit alleged that the administration violated procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for modifying Congressionally approved educational programs such as the teacher training grants at issue. 

 

Specifically the suit argued that:

• The Department of Education failed to conduct individualized reviews of the grant programs before terminating them
• The administration did not provide adequate justification or follow legally required procedures for changing or canceling established federal programs funded by Congress
• By unilaterally revoking funding tied to DEI initiatives, the administration potentially overstepped its authority, bypassing Congressional intent and legal safeguards designed to ensure continuity and transparency in federal education funding
   

The grants at issue—like the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs—were authorized and funded by Congress to improve teacher preparation and retention, especially in underserved areas. The lawsuit maintained that dismantling them without proper legal process was both harmful and unlawful.
 

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun of the District Court of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order on the grounds that the decision likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found the cancellations were “arbitrary and capricious,” lacking a reasoned explanation and failing to provide individualized assessments of each program. Judge  Joun also cited the risk of irreparable harm to schools, universities, teachers, and students who relied on the grants, concluding that the states challenging the cuts were likely to succeed on the merits of their case.

 

Immediately following the injunction, the administration filed an Emergency Application with the Supreme Court to stay the injunction, arguing that the District Court lacked the authority to direct the administration to resume the challenged payments.
 

The majority on the Supreme Court (5-4) reasoned that states could use their own funds to maintain these programs temporarily and that the federal government might not recover the funds if the states ultimately prevailed in court. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson  in dissent, expressing concerns about the decision’s impact on public education and the legality of the grant cancellations.   

 

On Tuesday, April 8, The U.S. The Supreme Court also blocked San Francisco-based U.S. Judge William Alsup's March 13 injunction requiring six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of recently hired probationary employees while litigation challenging the legality of the dismissals continues.
 

BRIDGE POV

These SCOTUS decisions seem to reflect a broader judicial trend where the Supreme Court has been scrutinizing the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions compelling the executive branch to allocate funds or reinstate programs. These decisions could suggest a judicial inclination to limit the scope of the lower court injunctions, particularly those involving financial expenditures or reinstatement of personnel. 

 

In this rapidly shifting legal and political environment, it is important to:

1. Mitigate the Chaos: Determine the importance of your organization’s dependence on federal grants and weigh the opportunity against forsaking your company values and commitment to your employees. 
   • If critical in the short term, find the balance in managing risk while continuing to embody the values that have made you successful up until now.
   • Work to minimize your reliance on these programs and develop contingency plans 
   • Explore growth opportunities tied to your values - they exist!
2. Maintain Transparency and Clarity: Ensure all hiring and grant-related initiatives are clearly documented, legally defensible and aligned with business objectives
3. Power in Numbers: Create or engage in coalitions and industry groups that are aligned with protecting your interests
4. Center your Values and Culture: A strong alignment of your values with business goals strengthens employee trust, customer loyalty and reputational resilience especially in uncertain climates

DOJ and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ANNOUNCE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM

• U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice Announce Title IX Special Investigations Team 
• Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government: Executive Order #14168
• Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports: Executive Order #14201

 

OVERVIEW
In addition to the Executive Order Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which broadly targets LGBTQ+ rights, Trump also issued a separate Executive Order- Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports -  specifically aimed at banning transgender athletes competing in K-12 and collegiate women’s sports. On April 4, 2025, a joint Special Investigation Team from the DOJ and DOE was appointed to coordinate resources to investigate and resolve claims that allege schools have violated Title IX by allowing transgender male athletes to compete in women’s sports. The University of Pennsylvania has already been targeted and is under investigation.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs or activities that receive federal funding including public charter K-12 schools, as well as public and private colleges and universities that receive such funding. 

 

Although the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision extended Title VII’s employment protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity, it did not directly apply to Title IX. 

 

Under the Biden Administration, the Department of Education interpreted Title IX to similarly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. However, the current administration reversed that guidance through the Executive Order Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, directing agencies to recognize only  “sex-based distinctions” consistent with “the binary nature of sex.” 

 

Importantly, while this executive order alters administrative interpretation, it does not change the law itself. 
 

BRIDGE POV 

The private sector can expect similar scrutiny on these related issues as federal enforcement expands beyond education. For example, employers offering all-gender, multi-use restrooms may face increased complaints, as the EEOC is actively soliciting reports related to perceived gender ideology in the workplace. Additionally, some employees are already framing pronoun use policies as infringements on religious freedom—raising the question of whether the Supreme Court will be receptive to such claims. 

Unlike other protected categories, religion and disability law impose an affirmative obligation on employers to accommodate sincerely held beliefs or impairments, potentially creating new legal tensions around workplace inclusion and compliance.
 

Institutions subject to Title IX should continue to consult with legal counsel to ensure that they are complying with prevailing standards under Title IX. At the same time, while ensuring compliance, employers must still support their LGBTQ+ employees.

 

1. Center Inclusive Workplace Policies: Maintain clear, transparent zero-tolerance non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies
2. Offer Practical, Voluntary Accommodations: Provide options like all-gender restrooms and inclusive dress codes but avoid mandates that could trigger religious or other legal objections
   • Consider framing pronoun use policies as part of a broader culture of respect with sensitivity to religious accommodation obligations
3. Train Managers for Nuance: Equip leadership with training on how to navigate the intersections of LGBTQ+ inclusion, religious accommodations and legal obligations - emphasize empathy, flexibility and compliance with civil rights and labor laws
4. Monitor Legal Developments: Stay updated on shifts in Title IX interpretation, EEOC enforcement and court rulings - especially from SCOTUS - that may influence workplace policy
5. Reinforce Internal Values and Culture: While interpretations may shift, companies should always remain grounded in your values. 
    

Supporting LGBTQ+ employees doesn’t always require legal mandates - it requires leadership, clarity and consistency that inclusion is a core part of your mission.

FCC INITIATES INVESTIGATIONS INTO DEI PROGRAMS

• FCC Investigation into Disney/ABC’s DEI Programs 
• FCC Investigation into Comcast and NBCUniversal’s Promotion of DEI
• FCC chair opens probe into diversity practices at Verizon | Reuters

 

OVERVIEW

Exercising its enforcement authority under the FCC EEO (equal employment opportunity) rules promulgated under the Communications Act, which prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, age, and gender by regulated entities the The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has initiated investigations into several companies regarding their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs:

• Comcast Corporation: In February 2025, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr directed the Enforcement Bureau to investigate Comcast's DEI initiatives, expressing concerns that such programs might violate equal employment opportunity regulations.
• Verizon Communications Inc.: Chairman Carr has also scrutinized Verizon’s DEI policies, indicating that the continuation of these initiatives could impact the approval of its proposed acquisition of Frontier Communications Parent Inc.
• Walt Disney Company and ABC: In March 2025, the FCC opened an investigation into Disney and its subsidiary ABC to assess whether their DEI practices comply with FCC regulations
   

These actions align with the broader agenda of the administration’s attack on DEI programs.  While the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) does not have direct authority to enforce executive orders, it can interpret and act within its existing regulatory powers in ways that align with an administration’s policy priorities—such as those outlined in executive orders.

 

Each company has committed to cooperating with the FCC during these investigations. Comcast emphasized its longstanding commitment to integrity and respect for all employees and customers. Verizon stated: "We are aware of the chairman's concerns. We look forward to engaging with the FCC staff on this issue. Verizon has always focused on having the best talent to deliver the best experiences to our customers." Disney has recently evolved some of its DEI programs, including modifying certain content disclaimers and altering performance factors related to executive compensation.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The FCC’s EEO rules prohibit employment discrimination by all regulated entities and require additional affirmative steps to promote equal opportunity—such as broad outreach in job postings, hosting job fairs, and offering training programs. 
 

These requirements closely mirror the EEOC’s enforcement of Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 

In fact, FCC-regulated entities are generally held to a higher standard, as the rules impose specific outreach and engagement obligations beyond those required under Title VII. Therefore, an entity in full compliance with Title VII would also meet the nondiscrimination requirements of the FCC’s EEO rules.

 

BRIDGE POV 

Based on the current legal and regulatory climate—especially the interplay between FCC investigations, EEOC guidance shifts, executive orders, and Title VII—here’s practical guidance companies can use to navigate this environment while supporting DEI and managing risk:

1. Anchor DEI in Compliance and Business Purpose: Frame your diversity, equity and inclusion strategies around well-established legal principles like equal opportunity and nondiscrimination. Ensure they are aligned with business needs—such as improving recruitment, retention, customer alignment, and growth.
2. DEI is still Legal  Ensure all your diversity, equity and inclusion strategies are lawful under Title VII and often required under FCC EEO rules. Avoid quotas or mandatory participation to mitigate risk.
3. Be Prepared: With agencies like the FCC and EEOC under political pressure, companies should be prepared for potential  audits or inquiries—even if they’re fully compliant. Develop internal protocols to respond quickly and confidently to regulatory requests.
4. Avoid Overcorrection: Don’t abandon DEI out of fear. Instead, refine it: emphasize fairness, transparency, and open participation. Many of the legal risks arise from misperceptions—not from the core principles of inclusion. There is no stigma to evolving your practices.
5. Reinforce Your Culture Internally: Communicate clearly that your organization is committed to a respectful, inclusive and equitable workplace—rooted in both legal compliance and organizational values

RESPONSE TO EEOC DEI “GUIDANCE”

• 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 
• Statement of Former Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Officials on Employer Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts April 3, 2025

 

OVERVIEW

As discussed in Issue 4, on March 19, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The Department of Justice (DOJ), jointly issued “technical assistance documents” focused on “educating the public about unlawful discrimination related to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) in the workplace.”

 

The first document, issued jointly by the DOJ and EEOC, entitled What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work encourages individuals to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC if they believe they have experienced DEI-related discrimination. The second document, issued solely by the EEOC and titled What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work is an FAQ-style document that generally explains how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) applies to DEI-related discrimination according to the EEOC.
 

On April 3, ten former EEOC Commissioners and Counsel issued an open letter pushing back on the EEOC’s recent guidance about potential legal risks of DEI programs - “designed to convey the message that initiatives to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), which the document does not define, are fraught with legal peril. This document ignores important aspects of applicable law, as well as the reality that proactive efforts are still needed in America’s workplaces to provide equal opportunity for all employees and applicants.”

 

The letter defends the legality of common DEI practices—such as training, employee resource groups (ERGs), recruitment, and demographic analysis—arguing that these efforts are well within the bounds of existing anti-discrimination law when properly implemented. 

 

It further acknowledges an employer’s legitimate interest in diverse workforces - “many employers recognize the importance of having a diverse and inclusive workforce. Research is clear that such workforces can increase the economic bottom line for companies and can enhance productivity and innovation across the board for all organizations.  In addition, it is well-established law that employers may express their interest in providing equal opportunity by having a policy that embraces diversity and by working to address barriers.”

 

The letter warns that the EEOC’s stance could deter employers from pursuing lawful and effective inclusion strategies and urge organizations to continue DEI efforts while ensuring legal compliance through careful design and consultation.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The letter by the former commissioners and counsel emphasizes that properly designed DEI strategies are not only lawful under Title VIIl, but can also serve as proactive tools to prevent and address discrimination - potentially reducing legal exposure and liability. It also cites a range of decided federal cases that have upheld the legality of workplace diversity training under Title VII. 

 

In light of this, the letter condemns the EEOC Acting Chair’s efforts to chill workplace diversity efforts that are fully compliant with the law.

 

Notwithstanding the detailed legal analysis contained in the letter, it should not be considered legal advice. Companies should consult with legal counsel when evaluating their DEI programs for compliance with Title VII.

 

BRIDGE POV 

These technical assistance documents reinforce the administration’s narrow approach to DEI, framing it primarily through the lens of workplace practices. These documents, like Executive Orders, do not establish new legal standards and are not enforceable as law. 

 

1. As emphasized in previous issues review your DEI practices to ensure they comply with federal law - take into account nuances to mitigate risk
2. Comprehensive diversity, equity and inclusion practices extend beyond a workplace only focus and can create significant marketplace impact. Consider where those opportunities exist for your particular business and pursue them
3. When Inclusion practices are part of your DNA and operationalized across all parts of your business aligned to business outcomes, the vulnerabilities are less obvious, making it harder to attack
4. When evaluating your training programs you need to remain mindful of complying with individual state (and city) training requirements around the country, including in locations such as New York, New York City, Illinois and California. These locations mandate annual trainings on topics such as sexual harassment, discrimination and bystander intervention.
5. Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), Business Resource Groups (BRGs) or affinity groups, are lawful and a vital component of a comprehensive Diversity, Equity and Inclusion strategy for employee retention
   • They provide much needed support to communities that are disproportionately affected by current policies and EOs
   • 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)
   • Open mentor and sponsorship opportunities to all, and not only to particular groups of employees
   • Avoid statements or goals that could be perceived as “quotas” the organization or the ERG is aiming to achieve – even if stated in aspirational terms

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Community, mentors and skill-building: Experts weigh the role of employee resource groups | AP News 

 

IBM must face white worker's lawsuit over diversity goals | Reuters

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!