Mitigate Risk. Lead with Clarity.

COURTS & LITIGATION 

ABC Sues FCC Over Early Broadcast License Review, Alleging First Amendment Retaliation

• ABC Sues Trump Administration Over F.C.C. Threat to Its TV Licenses 

• Disney, ABC sue FCC over threats to broadcast licenses 

On August 18, 2026, The Walt Disney Company, ABC and eight Disney-owned ABC television stations filed a federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission seeking to block the agency’s early review of the stations’ broadcast licenses. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the FCC is using its regulatory authority to retaliate against ABC for programming and editorial decisions protected by the First Amendment.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr ordered the early license reviews in April, requiring the eight stations to begin renewal proceedings years before their licenses are scheduled to expire. The reviews are connected to an FCC investigation opened in March 2025 into whether Disney’s diversity practices violate federal anti-discrimination law. Disney denies that its practices are unlawful.

The plaintiffs allege that the FCC’s investigation has imposed significant burdens, including approximately 600 document requests that have resulted in the production of more than 13,000 pages. According to the complaint, the requests have included internal communications involving producers and hosts of The View as well as information concerning political contributions by certain employees.

The complaint also cites statements by Trump criticizing ABC’s programming and news coverage and calling for ABC stations to lose their broadcast licenses. The FCC ordered the early license reviews one day after Trump publicly called for ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel Live! host Jimmy Kimmel.

The plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing the FCC from continuing the early license renewal proceedings while the lawsuit is pending. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan has directed the parties to propose a briefing schedule and ordered the FCC to notify the court if it takes steps to initiate proceedings that could lead to revocation of the stations’ licenses. Carr has denied that the FCC is retaliating against Disney and has said the Commission has made no decision to begin license revocation proceedings.

See also: FCC Orders Early License Review for ABC Stations (Issue 62); ABC Contests FCC's Authority Over Broadcast Content (Issue 64); FCC Investigated Disney DEI Programs (Issue 7); FCC Pressures Companies to Drop DEI in Exchange for Merger Approval (Issue 21)

 WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT  

EEOC Sues Washington University Alleging Retaliation Against Black Employee Who Complained About Race-Based Treatment During DEI Training

• EEOC Sues Washington University for Retaliation 

• Court Complaint 

OVERVIEW

On August 12, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against Washington University in St. Louis, alleging that the university retaliated against Amega Thaier, a Black senior program manager at the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, after she complained about race-based treatment during a mandatory diversity, equity and inclusion training.

According to the complaint, Thaier had previously objected to participating in a race-separated exercise but was placed alone in a Zoom breakout room during a January 2025 training because she was the only non-white member of her team. She complained internally that month and filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC in July 2025. The EEOC alleges that after she filed the charge, portions of her responsibilities were reassigned and the university ultimately eliminated her position, terminating her employment effective December 1, 2025.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleges that Washington University violated Title VII by terminating Thaier in retaliation for opposing alleged race discrimination, filing an EEOC charge and participating in the agency's investigation.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who oppose employment practices they reasonably believe are discriminatory or who file a discrimination charge or participate in an EEOC investigation. A retaliation claim is separate from the underlying discrimination allegation, meaning the employee does not have to ultimately prove that the conduct she opposed violated Title VII in order to be protected from retaliation.

Here, the EEOC alleges that Thaier engaged in protected activity when she objected to being separated from her white colleagues based on race, filed an EEOC charge and participated in the agency's investigation. The complaint acknowledges that her managers initially supported her internal complaint and alleges that their treatment of her changed after they learned in July 2025 that she had filed an EEOC charge. The EEOC alleges that portions of her responsibilities were subsequently reassigned and her position ultimately eliminated in retaliation for her protected activity.

The case does not ask the court to determine whether DEI training itself violates Title VII. The EEOC's claim is that Washington University violated Title VII's anti-retaliation provisions by terminating Thaier because she opposed what she believed was race discrimination and pursued a complaint with the agency. The allegations have not yet been adjudicated.

BRIDGE POV

This case reinforces an important principle: inclusion initiatives must themselves be inclusive. Programs designed to address discrimination do not sit outside the requirements of civil rights law, and employees must be able to raise concerns about how those programs are designed or implemented without fear of retaliation.

The allegations also demonstrate why organizations need to separate an employee's challenge to a particular practice from opposition to inclusion itself. Thaier's complaint was about how she was treated during the training. Organizations committed to inclusion should be prepared to hear those concerns, evaluate them objectively and correct practices that may inadvertently undermine the goals they were intended to advance.

Retaliation creates a separate layer of legal and cultural risk. Employees need confidence that raising concerns about discrimination, including concerns involving DEI programs, will not affect their opportunities or employment. That protection is fundamental both to Title VII compliance and to an organizational culture capable of identifying and addressing problems.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Review Inclusion Programs for Equal Treatment: Evaluate DEI training and other inclusion initiatives to ensure participation structures and activities do not unnecessarily separate or treat employees differently based on protected characteristics. 
   
   
2. Protect Employees Who Raise Concerns: Ensure managers understand that employees who question potentially discriminatory practices may be engaging in legally protected activity. 
   
   
3. Document Decisions Following Protected Activity: Apply heightened discipline to employment decisions involving employees who have recently raised discrimination concerns or filed charges. 

See also: 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); Second Circuit Flags Risk in Implicit-Bias Training — Opens Door to "Anti-DEI" Claims (Issue 33); White Employee Who Claims She Was Forced to Participate in Employer's Equity Initiatives Survives Motion to Dismiss (Issue 71); Employer Requirement of "Equity Mindset" Not Reverse Discrimination (Issue 74)

LGBTQ+ RIGHTS 

Federal Employees Challenge OPM Ban on Insurance Coverage for Gender-Affirming Care

• FEHB Complaint 

• Transgender Federal Workers Sue OPM Over Health Insurance Cutoff

• New Lawsuit Challenges FEHB’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Care  

OVERVIEW

On August 3, 2026, a group of transgender and nonbinary federal employees and one federal employee with a transgender child filed a proposed class action against the Office of Personnel Management, challenging restrictions on gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs.

The lawsuit challenges OPM directives requiring participating health plans to restrict coverage for chemical and surgical gender-affirming care. For the 2026 plan year, OPM permitted an exception process for individuals already undergoing treatment. According to the complaint, OPM eliminated that exception for 2027, which the plaintiffs allege will leave affected federal employees and their family members without coverage for ongoing gender-affirming treatment.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the coverage restrictions discriminate against federal employees based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs began the federal-sector EEO process in January 2026 and filed formal discrimination complaints with OPM in February. They are seeking damages and a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the coverage restrictions.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The lawsuit tests whether excluding coverage for gender-affirming care from federal employee health plans constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII. Employer-provided health insurance is a term or condition of employment subject to Title VII's nondiscrimination requirements.

The plaintiffs rely on the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that discrimination against an employee because they are transgender constitutes discrimination because of sex under Title VII. They argue that OPM's policy unlawfully denies coverage for certain treatments when provided as gender-affirming care while permitting coverage for the same or similar treatments when provided for other medical purposes.

The case arises amid disagreement over how Bostock applies to gender-affirming health benefits. In March 2026, the EEOC upheld restrictions on gender-affirming care coverage for federal employees in a separate administrative case, relying in part on the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for minors. Skrmetti addressed an Equal Protection challenge to a state law, not a Title VII employment claim. 

BRIDGE POV

The legal challenge in this case reinforces the importance of examining benefits through the same nondiscrimination lens applied to other employment practices. While this case concerns federal employee health plans, the underlying question of whether benefit exclusions result in different treatment based on a protected characteristic is relevant to how organizations evaluate their own offerings.

As legal and policy disputes over gender-affirming care continue, organizations should remain grounded in applicable law, the needs of their workforce and consistency between their stated commitments and the benefits they provide.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Review Health Plan Exclusions: Examine health benefit offerings and exclusions to identify whether coverage distinctions affect employees differently based on protected characteristics.
   
   
2. Align Benefits and Inclusion Strategy: Ensure decisions about employee benefits are considered alongside the organization's broader commitments to inclusion and equal opportunity.
   
   
3. Monitor Applicable Legal Requirements: Track federal and state requirements governing health benefits and nondiscrimination to ensure plan design remains compliant as legal challenges are resolved.

See also: Gender-Affirming Care Ban Sparks Class Action Complaint from Employees Against Trump Administration (Issue 46); HRC Advances Federal Employee Healthcare Challenge to EEOC (Issue 50); VA Eliminating DEI Programs and "Gender Ideology Services" for LGBTQ+ Veterans (Issue 70)

EEOC Drops Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Nike

• Civil rights agency moves to drop subpoena action against Nike 

• Nike under investigation by civil rights agency for alleged bias against white employees 

On August 14, 2026, the EEOC voluntarily dismissed its federal court action seeking to enforce a subpoena against Nike after the company produced information and documents requested by the agency. The subpoena was part of an investigation initiated in May 2024 by current EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, then a commissioner, who filed a charge alleging that Nike’s DEI-related programs and employment practices discriminated against white employees and applicants. Unlike most EEOC investigations, the inquiry did not originate with a discrimination charge filed by an employee.

The EEOC went to federal court in February 2026 to enforce the subpoena after concluding that Nike had not fully complied with its requests. Nike disputed that characterization and argued that many of the requests were overly broad and burdensome, describing them as a “fishing expedition.” 

See also: Federal Enforcement Campaign Targets Corporate DEI as Legal Standards Remain Unchanged (Issue 46); Northwestern Mutual Holds Its DEI Line as EEOC Escalates Review with Subpoena and Access Demands (Issue 40); EEOC Dismisses Subpoena Against Penn (Issue 76)

DOJ Retreats From Two Disability Integration Cases Following Shift in Olmstead Enforcement

• DOJ Takes Formal Action To Roll Back Olmstead Protections For Disabled Children

The Department of Justice has stepped back from two long-running disability rights cases involving the right of people with disabilities to receive services in community settings rather than institutions. The actions follow a June 18, 2026 opinion from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel concluding that neither Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act nor Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act imposes an "integration mandate" requiring states to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual's needs.

In Steward v. Muth, the DOJ withdrew from a class action it joined in 2011 challenging Texas's placement of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in nursing facilities. Following a trial, a federal court ruled in June 2025 that Texas had violated the rights of thousands of people with disabilities through unnecessary institutionalization. On August 13, the DOJ also asked the Eleventh Circuit to vacate its March 2026 decision in United States v. Florida, a case the Department filed in 2013 challenging Florida's unnecessary institutionalization of children with complex medical needs. A federal district court ruled in 2023 that Florida violated the ADA, and the Eleventh Circuit largely upheld that ruling earlier this year.

The two actions reverse the federal government's litigation position in cases it had pursued for more than a decade and reduce the DOJ's role in enforcing community integration for people with disabilities. 

Access to community-based services can directly affect whether people with disabilities are able to live independently, pursue education, participate in the workforce and remain connected to their communities, extending the significance of the policy shift beyond healthcare and institutional placement.

See also: Texas-Led Coalition Challenges Federal Disability Integration Requirements Under Section 504 (Issue 50); DOJ Memo Challenges Community Living Rights of People with Disabilities, Raising Fear of Return to Forced Institutionalization (Issue 70); Members of Congress Call on DOJ to Withdraw Olmstead Opinion (Issue 75)