Mitigate Risk. Lead with Clarity.

COURTS & LITIGATION 

Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Administration Antisemitism Lawsuit Against Harvard

• Judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit alleging Harvard failed to protect Jewish students

• Judge Dismisses Federal Antisemitism Case Against Harvard

On August 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit alleging that Harvard University violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students from antisemitic harassment. The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed the lawsuit in March, alleging that Harvard had been deliberately indifferent to antisemitism and discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza.

The lawsuit is part of the administration’s broader conflict with Harvard, which has included efforts to withhold billions of dollars in federal research funding and demands related to the university’s handling of antisemitism, admissions practices and other institutional policies. Harvard has challenged several of those actions in separate litigation, including successfully challenging the administration’s freezing of more than $2 billion in federal research funding in 2025.

In dismissing the antisemitism case, Judge Stearns ruled that the DOJ failed to plausibly allege an ongoing violation of Title VI. Most of the incidents cited by the government occurred during the 2023–24 academic year, while later incidents were “too isolated and episodic” to establish continuing noncompliance. The court also found that the DOJ had not adequately alleged failures by Harvard after the government formally notified the university in June 2025 that it was not complying with Title VI. The dismissal does not determine whether Harvard violated Title VI in its handling of the earlier incidents.

See also: Trump Administration Continues Targeted Enforcement of Title VI and Title IX (Issue 20); Harvard Wins Ruling Blocking Unprecedented Funding Freeze (Issue 28); DOJ Sues Harvard for Withholding Admissions Data in Civil Rights Investigation (Issue 52); DOJ Finds UCLA and GWU Liable for Failing to Address Antisemitism (Issue 25); DOJ Files Second Antisemitism Suit Against UCLA (Issue 66)

 WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT  

EEOC Holds Public Hearing on Proposal to Eliminate EEO-1 and Other Workforce Demographic Reporting

• Researchers, advocates rail against government's efforts to end workforce data collection
  

On August 11, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public hearing on its proposed rule to eliminate federal requirements for employers and other covered entities to submit workforce demographic reports to the agency. The proposal would rescind the EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5 and EEO-6 reporting requirements, as well as recordkeeping requirements specifically associated with those reports. The Commission voted 2–1 on July 21 to advance the proposal, which was published in the Federal Register on July 23. Public comments remain open through August 24.

The EEO-1 requirement, first adopted in 1966, requires covered private employers to report aggregate workforce data by race and ethnicity, sex and job category. Other EEO reports apply to certain labor organizations, state and local governments, and elementary and secondary school systems. The EEOC has not collected the EEO-2 report since 1981 or the EEO-6 since 1993, but the underlying regulatory provisions remain in place and would also be removed under the proposal.

The EEOC states that the reports are not required by Title VII and has preliminarily concluded that routine collection of race and sex data from covered employers is unnecessary for enforcement, imposes substantial administrative costs, and may raise constitutional concerns. The agency estimates that the existing data collections cost employers approximately $275 million annually. Chair Andrea Lucas has also argued that requiring employers to classify workers by race and sex outside a specific discrimination investigation may encourage race-conscious employment practices.

At the August 11 hearing, 22 witnesses testified, with 16 opposing the proposed rescission and six supporting it. Opponents included civil rights organizations, researchers and former EEOC officials who argued that the data supports discrimination investigations, helps identify potential patterns of discrimination and provides information about workforce representation across industries.

Maya Raghu, Director of the Protecting and Advancing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Initiative at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, described the reports as “unique government datasets” that provide information about access to employment opportunities and argued that eliminating them would undermine the EEOC’s civil rights enforcement mission. Raghu also disputed the Commission’s position that collecting workforce demographic data constitutes an impermissible racial classification or encourages employers to make unlawful race-based employment decisions.

Former EEOC General Counsel Karla Gilbride, testifying on behalf of the ACLU and EEO Leaders, similarly argued that the data allows investigators to assess the potential scope of alleged discrimination and helps employers compare their workforce demographics with industry benchmarks. Gilbride argued that collecting demographic information does not itself distribute benefits or burdens based on race and therefore does not trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny. 

The proposal has not been finalized, and existing reporting requirements remain in effect while the rulemaking proceeds. The proposed rule would not eliminate the EEOC’s authority to request demographic or other employment records in connection with a specific discrimination charge or investigation, or the Commission’s broader record-preservation requirements unrelated to the EEO reports.

See also: EEOC Acting Commissioner Andrea Lucas Issued a Public "Message" Regarding the Use of EEO-1 Data (Issue 14); Shareholder Advocacy Group Sues for Access to Federal Contractor EEO-1 Data (Issue 70); EEOC Proposes Ending EEO-1 Reporting Requirements (Issue 65); EEOC Votes to Propose Rescission of EEO-1 and All Workforce Demographic Reporting Requirements (Issue 74); EEOC Opens Public Comment Period on Proposal to Eliminate EEO-1 Reporting (Issue 75)

 CIVIL RIGHTS 

FTC Abandons Disparate Impact Enforcement

• FTC Ditches ‘Disparate Impact’

• FTC Abandons Disparate Impact Theory 

OVERVIEW

On August 7, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it will no longer pursue enforcement claims based on disparate impact or what the agency calls “unfair discrimination.” The Commission approved the new enforcement policy by a 2–0 vote.

The FTC stated that it will continue to pursue intentional discrimination claims, including disparate-treatment claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, but will no longer use statistical disparities to challenge facially neutral practices based on differences in outcomes among protected groups. The Commission also rejected using Section 5 of the FTC Act as a standalone basis for “unfair discrimination” claims.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said disparate impact liability exceeds the Commission’s statutory authority and can pressure businesses to make race-conscious decisions to avoid liability. The action follows Trump’s April 2025 Executive Order 14281, which directed federal agencies to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability to the maximum extent permitted by law. The FTC’s position also aligns with the EEOC’s decision to discontinue disparate impact enforcement.

The FTC also reviewed prior enforcement matters involving statistical disparity analyses and modified certain compliance obligations involving Napleton Inc., Passport Auto Group, and an individual formerly associated with Coulter Motor Company LLC.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The FTC’s policy statement is an enforcement decision, not a repeal of disparate impact law. The Commission can determine how it will exercise its own enforcement authority, but it cannot change statutes enacted by Congress or prevent courts from applying existing legal standards.

The distinction between disparate treatment and disparate impact remains central. Disparate treatment concerns intentional discrimination, while disparate impact addresses facially neutral practices that disproportionately affect protected groups. The FTC will continue to pursue intentional discrimination claims where authorized, including under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, while declining to pursue disparate impact under any statute within its enforcement jurisdiction.

The Commission is also rejecting the use of Section 5 of the FTC Act as an independent basis for disparate impact or “unfair discrimination” claims. The policy does not prevent private plaintiffs, state attorneys general, or other regulators from pursuing disparate impact claims where authorized under applicable federal, state, or local law.

While the FTC and EEOC have both decided to discontinue disparate impact enforcement, neither agency’s enforcement position eliminates disparate impact liability where it remains available under applicable law.

BRIDGE POV

The FTC’s decision, consistent with the EEOC’s position, further narrows federal enforcement of disparate impact. But it does not eliminate disparate impact liability or the risk it creates for organizations. Individuals may still bring private lawsuits under laws that recognize disparate impact claims, and state and local enforcement may continue independently of federal agency priorities.

That distinction matters. A change in federal enforcement priorities does not change what organizations can be sued for, nor does it mean that neutral policies producing discriminatory effects no longer warrant scrutiny. Less federal enforcement does not equal less legal risk.

Organizations should therefore resist interpreting these agency decisions as permission to stop examining outcomes. Monitoring data, testing neutral practices for unintended effects and maintaining defensible business justifications remain important safeguards against litigation as well as tools for ensuring fair and effective decision-making.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Continue Assessing Disparate Impact Risk: Do not equate the FTC’s enforcement position with the elimination of liability. Review where private plaintiffs, state attorneys general and other regulators may still pursue disparate impact claims under applicable federal, state or local law.
   
   
2. Keep Measuring Outcomes: Continue monitoring demographic outcomes across employment, lending, pricing, customer access and other relevant practices where legally permissible. Use the data to identify potentially disproportionate effects before they become litigation or compliance issues.
   
   
3. Test and Document Neutral Practices: Review facially neutral policies that produce materially different outcomes across protected groups. Document legitimate business purposes, consistent application and the rationale supporting practices that could face scrutiny.

See also: Trump Issues Executive Order on Disparate Impact Liability (Issue 10); EEOC Abandons Disparate Impact Enforcement (Issue 33); DOJ Ends Investigations Into Systemic Racism and Sexism (Issue 42); OLC Issues Opinion Challenging Constitutionality of Disparate Impact Liability; EEOC Adopts New National Enforcement Plan Targeting Disparate Impact (Issue 68); CFPB Removes Disparate Impact from Fair Lending Rules (Issue 64)

DOJ Finds Duke Law School Discriminated in Admissions

• Justice Department Finds Duke Law School Discriminates Based on Race in Admissions 

• Justice Department Accuses Duke Law School of Racial Discrimination

On August 6, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a findings letter concluding that Duke University School of Law intentionally discriminated based on race in admissions for its 2023, 2024 and 2025 entering classes, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision. It is the first public DOJ determination that a law school violated SFFA. The DOJ cited internal admissions materials and statistical evidence that Black and Hispanic applicants had higher odds of admission than white and Asian applicants with comparable academic credentials.

The DOJ also alleged that Duke used facially neutral admissions practices, including consideration of applicants’ discussions of race and lived experience, to achieve race-based preferences. SFFA permits consideration of how race affected an applicant’s life when tied to the applicant’s individual experiences or qualities rather than race itself. Duke is reviewing the findings and has not conceded the DOJ’s allegations. The DOJ has requested discussions toward a voluntary resolution agreement.

See also: Major Enrollment Shift Following Affirmative Action Ban Creates Strategic Recruiting Challenge for Employers (Issue 50); DOJ Sues Harvard for Withholding Admissions Data in Civil Rights Investigation (Issue 52); Trump Administration Adopts New Reporting Requirement for Colleges and Universities to Ascertain Whether Race Is Being Used in Admissions (Issue 25); ABA Council Votes to Repeal Diversity Standard (Issue 65)

Spencer Stuart Report Shows Decline in Diversity of New S&P 500 Board Appointments

• 2026 S&P 500 New Director Snapshot

Spencer Stuart’s 2026 S&P 500 New Director Snapshot, based on the latest proxy statements of 488 companies, found that S&P 500 boards appointed just 364 new independent directors, the lowest number since 2016. The incoming class also shifted toward more experienced executives, with 37% of new directors coming from CEO backgrounds, the highest share since 2012. Women and directors from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups accounted for 40% of new appointments, down from 46% in 2025 and 72% in 2021. Women represented 29%, down from 38% last year, while appointments of underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities increased slightly from 17% to 18%.

Formal board diversity practices also declined. The percentage of boards reporting a Rooney Rule-like policy requiring women and minority candidates to be included in director searches fell from 58% in 2025 to 12% in 2026. Disclosure of underrepresented-minority board composition declined from 78% to 62%, while LGBTQ+ disclosure fell from 9% to 4%. Overall board composition remained largely unchanged, with women and directors from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups representing 49.3% of all S&P 500 directors compared with 49.6% in 2025, and underrepresented-minority representation holding at 24%.

See also: Nasdaq Board Diversity Rule Struck Down by Fifth Circuit (Issue 40); Colgate-Palmolive Plans to Defend DEI Criteria for Board Selection (Issue 53); Shareholders Continue to Strongly Reject Anti-DEI Proposals (Issue 71)