Mitigate Risk. Lead with Clarity.

DEVELOPING

EEOC Releases Proposed Strategic Plan for FY 2026–2030

• EEOC Strategic Plan 2022-2026

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has published its proposed Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2026–2030 opening a public comment period through July 19, 2026. The release follows the Commission's unexplained cancellation of its July 1 public meeting, where adoption of the Strategic Plan had been scheduled for consideration.

The proposed plan removes language directing outreach toward particularly vulnerable workers and does not expressly recognize sexual orientation and gender identity as protected under Title VII. Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal encouraged members of the public to submit comments, arguing that the proposal reflects a significant shift in the agency's priorities and was developed through a less transparent process than the current Strategic Plan.

COURTS & LITIGATION 

Key Supreme Court Decisions on the Last Day of the Term

On the final day of its 2025–2026 term, the Supreme Court issued two major constitutional decisions addressing birthright citizenship and transgender student athletes.

Trump v. Barbara

• Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship 

• Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship 

• 25-365 Trump v. Barbara (06/30/2026)
  

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of affected families and other challengers. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that the executive order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, reaffirming that children born in the United States, including those born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, are citizens at birth under the Constitution.

West Virginia v. B.P.J

• Court rules that states can exclude transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports teams 

• 24-43 West Virginia v. B. P. J. (06/30/2026)

Also on June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. B.P.J. that states may exclude transgender student athletes from girls' and women's sports teams. The Court held that Title IX permits schools to maintain separate athletic teams based on biological sex and concluded that West Virginia's law does not violate either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. The decision resolves a closely watched challenge involving a transgender student who argued that the law unlawfully barred her from participating in girls' school athletics.

See also: Supreme Court to Review Trump-Era Order That Seeks to End Automatic Citizenship for U.S.-Born Children (Issue 42); SCOTUS Limits Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Case, Sidesteps Core Constitutional Issue (Issue 19); DOJ and DOE Announce Special Investigation Team on Transgender Athletes (Issue 7); DOJ and DOE Sue California Over Title IX Compliance (Issue 21); U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee Bans Transgender Athletes from Women's Competition (Issue 23); Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Law Restricting Access to Healthcare for Transgender Minors (Issue 18); Education Dept. Voids Title IX Transgender Settlements (Issue 59)

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT 

Federal Court Distinguishes Between Lawful Equity Initiatives and Race-Based Employment Practices

• Deemer-ruling

• Evanston Drama Teacher vs. Critical Race Theory

OVERVIEW

On June 23, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a mixed ruling in Deemar v. Board of Education of the City of Evanston/Skokie School District 65, a case brought by a white middle school theater teacher who claimed that she was subjected to unlawful race discrimination through the school district's equity initiatives. She alleged that racial affinity groups for staff and students, race based professional development opportunities, race segregated staff meetings, and curriculum addressing systemic racism violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI and created a racially hostile educational environment.

The court issued a mixed ruling, dismissing some allegations while allowing others to proceed. With respect to the Equal Protection claim, it concluded that many of the plaintiff's allegations, including exposure to the district's equity messaging, curriculum, and other programming, were insufficient to establish a constitutional injury or failed to demonstrate that she personally experienced differential treatment. However, the court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged an Equal Protection claim based on allegations that she was required to attend a staff meeting separated by race and excluded from certain race based professional development opportunities. Those allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

The court separately dismissed the plaintiff's Title VI claim, concluding that the challenged conduct involved employment practices rather than educational programs receiving federal financial assistance.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The plaintiff asserted claims under two legal theories: the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Under the Equal Protection Clause, the court focused on whether the plaintiff alleged more than disagreement with the district’s equity related curriculum, messaging, or training. The court found that exposure to ideas or programming about race, without more, was not enough to establish a constitutional injury and dismissed those aspects of the Equal Protection claim. However, allegations that a public employer separated staff by race for a meeting or excluded employees from professional development opportunities based on race involved race based classifications. Because racial classifications by a public entity are subject to strict scrutiny, those allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage, allowing that aspect of the Equal Protection claim to proceed.

The court dismissed the Title VI claim on a different ground. Although Title VI prohibits race discrimination in federally funded programs and activities, the court concluded that the challenged conduct involved the plaintiff’s employment conditions and professional development as a teacher. Because Title VI generally does not authorize employment discrimination claims unless the primary purpose of the federal funding is to provide employment, the court held that the plaintiff’s Title VI claim could not proceed.

BRIDGE POV

This decision reinforces an important legal distinction between lawful equity and inclusion initiatives and unlawful race based employment practices, concepts that have too often been conflated.

The court did not conclude that diversity, equity, or inclusion initiatives are unlawful. Instead, it focused on whether specific employment practices treated employees differently because of race.

The lesson is not to abandon inclusion efforts but to ensure they are designed and implemented in a manner consistent with existing civil rights law. Organizations can continue to invest in education, professional development, mentorship, community building, and initiatives that expand opportunity, provided participation and access are structured in ways that comply with the law.

As legal scrutiny of workplace practices continues to increase, organizations should view inclusion as a governance issue. Well designed programs that are inclusive, transparent, and grounded in legitimate business objectives are better positioned to withstand legal, reputational, and operational risk.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Review Inclusion Programs for Equal Access: Evaluate employee resource groups, leadership programs, mentoring initiatives, professional development opportunities, and internal events to ensure participation criteria comply with applicable civil rights laws. Where appropriate, design programs around shared interests, experiences, or business objectives rather than restricting participation based on protected characteristics.
   
   
2. Distinguish Education from Employment Decisions: Continue educating employees on topics such as bias, culture, and inclusion while ensuring that employment decisions, workplace opportunities, and access to professional development are administered using consistent, objective, and legally compliant standards.
   
   
3. Strengthen Governance and Legal Oversight: Regularly review inclusion initiatives with Legal, Human Resources, and business leaders to confirm they support organizational objectives, comply with evolving legal requirements, and can be clearly articulated as advancing workplace effectiveness, employee engagement, and business performance.

See also: The True Intention of Title VII and the Assertion of Reverse Discrimination — Diemert v. City of Seattle (Issue 2); EEOC and DOJ Issue Guidance on Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination (Issue 4); EEOC and DOJ Issue Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination at Work (Issue 7); DOJ Issues Guidance on Compliance with Federal Antidiscrimination Law in the Practice of DEI (Issue 24); Federal Enforcement Campaign Targets Corporate DEI as Legal Standards Remain Unchanged (Issue 46); DEI Training Hostile-Work Claim Rejected — Tenth Circuit (Issue 64)

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT 

A Stanford Study Finds AI Hiring Tools Increase Racial Bias

• AI Hiring Tools Can Yield Racial Bias and Systemic Rejection 

• Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

OVERVIEW

Researchers from the Stanford Institute for Human Centered Artificial Intelligence, Chapman University, and Northeastern University have published what they describe as the first large scale study of AI hiring algorithms in real world use, analyzing approximately 4 million job applications submitted by more than 3 million applicants across 1,700 job postings at 156 employers using the same third party hiring platform. The study offers a rare examination of how a single AI hiring system influenced applicant outcomes across multiple employers and industry sectors.

Using the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's four fifths rule for measuring adverse impact, the researchers found that approximately 26% of Black applicants and 15% of Asian applicants applied to positions where the AI system produced outcomes that met the federal threshold for adverse impact. The researchers estimated that if Black and Asian applicants had advanced at the same rate as the most favored group (typically white applicants), approximately 40,000 additional applications would have progressed to the next stage of the hiring process.

The study also identified what the researchers termed an "algorithmic monoculture", finding that applicants who applied to multiple positions screened by the same AI hiring platform were more likely to be repeatedly rejected than if hiring decisions had been made independently. The authors concluded that reliance on a single third party AI hiring platform across multiple employers may amplify disparate outcomes at scale.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The use of AI tools in hiring is governed by existing anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies regardless of whether a hiring decision is made by a human recruiter or recommended by an automated system. Employers generally cannot avoid liability simply because a screening decision was generated by software or a third party vendor.

Under Title VII, employers may be liable when a neutral hiring practice produces an unlawful disparate impact on a protected group unless the practice is job related, consistent with business necessity, and no less discriminatory alternative is available. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has long recognized that employers remain responsible for employment decisions made through the use of selection procedures, including those developed or administered by third party vendors.

The study's use of the EEOC's four-fifths rule also reflects an established federal framework for identifying potential adverse impact. While the four-fifths rule is not itself a legal determination of discrimination, it remains one of the principal tools used to evaluate whether employment selection procedures warrant further review under federal equal employment opportunity standards.

BRIDGE POV

This study reinforces an important principle for employers adopting artificial intelligence in the workplace: the absence of human intent does not eliminate organizational responsibility. Organizations remain accountable for hiring outcomes, even when candidate screening or ranking is performed by a third party AI system.

As AI becomes more deeply embedded in employment decisions, governance must evolve alongside the technology. Organizations should view AI enabled hiring tools as employment practices subject to the same legal, ethical, and business standards as any other selection process. The responsibility to monitor outcomes, identify potential bias, and ensure compliance remains with the employer.

The organizations best positioned to leverage AI are those that combine technological innovation with strong governance, human oversight, inclusive practices and ongoing evaluation. Responsible AI is not about limiting innovation. It is about building systems that are effective, transparent, and aligned with both business objectives and existing civil rights law.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Strengthen AI Governance: Treat AI hiring tools as employment selection procedures rather than technology products. Establish governance processes that include Legal, Human Resources, Talent Acquisition, and Technology leaders to oversee implementation, performance, and compliance.
2. Require Transparency and Independent Validation: Require vendors to provide documentation demonstrating how AI models are validated, how adverse impact testing is conducted, how accessibility is addressed, and how hiring recommendations can be explained and independently evaluated.
3. Monitor Outcomes and Preserve Human Oversight: Regularly evaluate hiring outcomes across protected groups, conduct periodic adverse impact analyses, and maintain meaningful human review of AI assisted hiring decisions to identify and address potential risks before they become systemic.

See also: Trump Issues Executive Order on the Use of DEI in AI (Issue 23); Federal Court Lets Age-Bias Claims Against Workday's AI Hiring Tools Proceed in Landmark Test of Algorithmic Screening (Issue 31); AI Governance, Civil Rights, and the Expanding Scope of Algorithmic Accountability (Issue 43); Workday's AI Hiring Tools and Discrimination Liability (Issue 70)

EEOC Votes 2–1 to Rescind Longstanding Affirmative Action Guidance

• EEOC Votes to Rescind Affirmative Action Interpretive Guidelines and Related Compliance Manual

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has finalized its rescission of the 1979 Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII interpretive guidelines and the related Compliance Manual Section 607 on Affirmative Action. Approved by a 2–1 vote, the guidance, which had been in place for nearly five decades, outlined the circumstances under which employers could voluntarily implement affirmative action plans to remedy the effects of past or present discrimination while remaining consistent with Title VII. Chair Andrea Lucas and Commissioner Brittany Panuccio voted in favor of the rescission, while Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal dissented.

The Commission concluded that the guidance no longer reflects the text of Title VII or current Supreme Court precedent. Chair Lucas stated that the rescission reaffirms that Title VII's protections apply equally to all workers. In her dissent, Commissioner Kotagal argued that the guidance remained a narrowly tailored tool that allowed employers to voluntarily address workplace discrimination and objected to rescinding the guidance without the same procedural safeguards used to adopt it.

The rescission removes a longstanding interpretive framework that many employers have relied upon when evaluating voluntary affirmative action programs, but it does not amend Title VII or automatically render all voluntary affirmative action plans unlawful.

Employers may continue to pursue initiatives designed to expand opportunity and address documented workforce imbalances, provided those programs comply with Title VII and do not rely on unlawful race or sex based decision making. The practical effect of the Commission's action is that employers must now look more directly to the statute and judicial precedent, rather than EEOC interpretive guidance, when assessing the legal boundaries of voluntary affirmative action.

See also: EEOC Proposes Rescinding 1979 Affirmative Action Guidelines (Issue 67); EEOC Sends Title VII Compliance Letter to Fortune 500 CEOs (Issue 54); EEOC Proposal to End EEO-1 Reporting (Issue 65) 

GSA Says Anti-DEI Contract Clause Applies to Federal Leases and Concessions 

• GSA Confirms Anti-DEI Contract Clause Extends to Federal Leases and Concessions 

• GSA Publishes Notice on Government DEI Contract Clause

On June 25, 2026, the U.S. General Services Administration published a Federal Register notice stating that the federal government's DEI contract clause implementing Executive Order 14398 applies to all non Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contracts, including real property leases, concession contracts, and outleases. The notice states that the clause applies to lessors, concessionaires, and outlease holders, expanding its application beyond traditional federal procurement contracts. It also states that noncompliance may result in suspension, debarment, or potential liability under the False Claims Act. Public comments are due on August 24, 2026.

See also: New Anti-DEI Order Targets Federal Contractors (Issue 58); GSA Proposes Anti-DEI Certification Requirement for Federal Funding Recipients (Issue 52); Coalition Challenges Executive Order 14398 (Issue 61)

EEO Leaders Criticize DOJ Opinion on Disparate Impact

• EEO Leaders Response to DOJs Disparate Impact Opinion

On July 1, 2026, EEO Leaders, an organization comprised of former officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), published a response criticizing the Department of Justice's June 2026 Office of Legal Counsel opinion concluding that the EEOC's disparate impact framework is unconstitutional. The organization argued that disparate impact liability is grounded in both Title VII and longstanding Supreme Court precedent and cannot be eliminated through an executive branch legal opinion. EEO Leaders also emphasized that the Office of Legal Counsel opinion is not legally binding and urged employers to continue assessing whether employment practices and selection criteria are job related, consistent with business necessity, and compliant with Title VII.

See also: Trump Issues Executive Order on Disparate Impact Liability and Draws Pushback From Former Officials (Issues 10, 12); EEOC 120-Day Report Signals Significant Shift in Enforcement Priorities (Issue 14); EEOC Abandons Disparate Impact Enforcement (Issue 33); EEOC Reports Record Recoveries as Former Officials Challenge Framing (Issue 59); DOJ Declares EEOC Disparate Impact Guidelines Unconstitutional (Issue 68)