Mitigate Risk. Lead with Clarity.

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT 

Public Financial Officials from Six Jurisdictions Challenge Media Companies Over DEI Rollbacks

• Top Financial Officers from Six Jurisdictions Raise Concerns Over Media Companies Retreat from Diversity Initiatives

On August 17, 2026, top financial officials from New York City, New York State, Connecticut, California, Maryland and Massachusetts jointly sent letters to five major media and telecommunications companies, Verizon, Paramount Skydance, Nexstar Media Group, Charter Communications and AT&T, raising concerns about recent decisions to scale back diversity and inclusion programs. The signatories represent jurisdictions whose public pension funds hold significant equity positions in the companies and argue that the changes could create operational, legal and financial risks requiring board-level oversight.

The letters emphasize that federal anti-discrimination statutes, including Title VII, remain in effect regardless of changes in federal enforcement priorities, and that state and local civil rights laws may impose additional obligations. The officials also question whether the companies adequately assessed the potential effects of the changes on compliance, talent recruitment, employee retention, operational performance and shareholder value.

The signatories requested information from each company about whether management provided its board with a formal risk assessment before making the changes and whether the board determined that sufficient compliance, monitoring and disclosure mechanisms would remain in place. They also pointed to Costco and Netflix as companies that have publicly reaffirmed their diversity commitments and to Disney as a company that maintained core programs while facing federal scrutiny of its DEI practices.

See also: Shareholders Overwhelmingly Reject Anti-DEI Proposals for Second Consecutive Year (Issue 70); Proxy Season 2025: A Defining Line on DEI (Issue 18); FCC Pressures Companies to Drop DEI in Exchange for Merger Approval (Issue 21); ABC Sues FCC Over Threat to Broadcast Licenses (Issue 78)

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT 

EEOC Proposes Major Changes to Federal Employee Discrimination Complaint Process

On August 26, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted to issue a proposed rule that would substantially restructure the process used by more than two million federal employees and applicants to pursue workplace discrimination claims. The proposal would eliminate mandatory pre-complaint counseling, change when employees may obtain proceedings before an EEOC administrative judge, eliminate administrative adjudication of class complaints, and revise procedures governing appeals, attorney fees and other aspects of the federal-sector EEO process.

Under the current system, after an agency investigates a discrimination complaint, an employee generally may request a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge before the agency issues its final action. Under the proposed rule, the employing agency would instead issue the initial final decision. An employee could appeal that decision to the EEOC, but proceedings before an administrative judge, including a hearing, would occur only when the Commission determines on appeal that they are necessary or efficient. Employees would retain the right to ultimately pursue their claims in federal court.

The proposal would also eliminate the EEOC’s administrative process for class complaints. Employees could continue to assert putative class claims to preserve them for purposes of exhausting administrative remedies before proceeding to federal court, but the EEOC would no longer certify, adjudicate, settle or award relief through an administrative class complaint.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said the changes are intended to make a system the Commission considers too slow and complicated faster and more effective. Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal opposed the proposal, stating that the changes would weaken equal opportunity and access to justice for federal employees.

Before the Commission proceeded, Kotagal made two motions. The first sought to postpone consideration of the proposed rule until a federal-sector workgroup established by the Commission could complete its review and make recommendations on potential reforms. The second sought to extend the public comment period from 30 to 60 days, consistent with the period provided for previous major revisions to the federal-sector EEO regulations. Neither motion received a second and neither proceeded to a vote.

The Commission then voted to approve publication of the proposed rule, with Kotagal dissenting. The rule has not been finalized and would not apply to complaints already in process. The public will have 30 days to submit comments after publication in the Federal Register.

See also: EEOC Rescinds Voting Procedures and Workplace Harassment Guidance (Issue 48); EEOC Replaces Strategic Enforcement Plan with New National Enforcement Plan (Issue 68); Lawsuit Alleges EEOC Has Halted Federal Employee Class Discrimination Complaints (Issue 75) 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS & FEDERAL POLICY 

OFCCP Significantly Reduces Affirmative Action Obligations of Federal Contractors and Subcontractors 

• OFCCP Issues Final Rules Upending Federal Contractors’ Affirmative Action Obligations 

• Rescission of Executive Order 11246 Implementing Regulations

OVERVIEW

On August 21, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published final rules that significantly reduce affirmative action obligations for federal contractors and subcontractors. The rules follow Trump’s January 2025 Executive Order 14173, which revoked Executive Order 11246, the framework that for more than sixty years, required covered federal contractors to maintain affirmative action programs focused on race and sex.

The final rules formally rescind the regulations implementing Executive Order 11246 effective October 26, 2026; narrow Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act’s affirmative action requirements for individuals with disabilities, generally effective September 21, 2026; and update coverage thresholds and enforcement procedures under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA), effective September 21, 2026.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The rescinded Executive Order 11246 regulations required covered contractors to develop race- and sex-based affirmative action plans, conduct utilization analyses, establish placement goals where underrepresentation existed, and comply with related recordkeeping and enforcement requirements.

The final rules also substantially scale back OFCCP’s affirmative action requirements for individuals with disabilities under Section 503. Contractors will no longer be required to invite applicants and employees to voluntarily self-identify as having a disability, maintain the longstanding 7 percent utilization goal, or conduct associated utilization analyses and data collection. However, contractors must still comply with Section 503’s nondiscrimination and reasonable accommodation requirements, assess outreach efforts, and maintain affirmative action programs addressing individuals with disabilities.

The changes affecting protected veterans are more limited. OFCCP primarily made technical revisions to VEVRAA regulations, including removing provisions tied to Executive Order 11246 and updating contract coverage thresholds.

Despite these changes, federal contractors remain subject to Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 503’s remaining requirements, VEVRAA, and applicable state and local anti-discrimination laws.

BRIDGE POV

The rollback of federal contractor affirmative action requirements changes what companies are required to do, not the underlying responsibility to ensure fair and nondiscriminatory employment practices. Title VII and other federal, state and local civil rights protections remain in place, even as the federal contractor compliance framework becomes significantly narrower. 

Workforce data, outreach and analysis can provide visibility into whether organizations are attracting, developing and retaining talent effectively. The elimination of federal reporting or utilization requirements does not eliminate the value of that information in identifying barriers, strengthening decision-making and managing risk. 

A change in regulatory requirements does not require companies to abandon lawful practices that continue to deliver value.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Map What Has Changed and What Remains: Review affirmative action programs, data collection, self-identification processes and reporting requirements to determine which obligations have been eliminated or modified and which remain required under federal, state and local law.
   
   

2. Preserve Workforce Insights That Deliver Value: Evaluate workforce data and analyses previously maintained for compliance purposes and determine where continuing them voluntarily can support talent strategy, identify barriers and strengthen organizational decision-making.
   
   

3. Separate Compliance Changes From Business Strategy: Ensure that decisions to modify existing programs are based on legal requirements and business objectives rather than assuming that reduced federal obligations require broader changes to lawful inclusion and talent practices.

See also: Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Issue 1); OFCCP Begins Closing Down (Issue 3); OFCCP Defunded Under Budget Bill (Issue 20); One Year Later: Assessing the Impact of the "Ending Illegal Discrimination" Executive Order (Issue 48); New Anti-DEI Order Targets Federal Contractors (Issue 58)

Deloitte Pays $21.5 Million to Resolve DOJ False Claims Act Allegations Over DEI Employment Practices 

• Deloitte to Pay $21.5 Million to End DOJ Fraud Investigation Over DEI Policies 

• Deloitte Agrees to Pay $21.5M to Resolve Alleged Employment Discrimination Violations

On August 25, 2026, Deloitte Consulting LLP agreed to pay $21.5 million to resolve Justice Department allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by falsely certifying compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements while allegedly considering race and sex in employment decisions.

According to the DOJ, Deloitte tracked race- and sex-based workforce goals and allegedly considered race or sex in hiring, promotions, staffing assignments, mentoring, leadership development and other career opportunities. The government also alleged that certain senior leaders were evaluated in part on progress toward demographic goals. Deloitte denied unlawful discrimination, and the settlement does not constitute an admission or determination of liability.

The case was brought by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, founded by conservative legal activist Edward Blum, under the False Claims Act’s whistleblower provisions. Blum has led multiple legal challenges to race-conscious policies, including the litigation that resulted in the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision restricting the consideration of race in college admissions. The organization will receive approximately $4.3 million from the federal settlement. Florida and Indiana will each receive approximately $1.2 million under separate state False Claims Act settlements. The DOJ pursued the federal case through its Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which targets federal contractors and recipients alleged to have falsely certified compliance with civil rights requirements.

See also: DOJ Launches Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (Issue 13); DOJ Civil Division Issues Enforcement Priorities Memorandum (Issue 17); DOJ Outlines Antidiscrimination Enforcement Strategy Under False Claims Act (Issue 53); Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding (Issue 41); DOJ Uses False Claims Act to Secure $17 Million Settlement with IBM (Issue 60)

New York Times Sues EEOC Seeking Records on White-Worker Discrimination Enforcement

• New York Times Sues EEOC to Get White Worker Bias Information

On August 24, 2026, The New York Times Company sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), alleging that the agency failed to respond to requests seeking records related to its focus on alleged discrimination against White workers during the Trump administration.

According to the complaint, the Times submitted FOIA requests on June 16 seeking communications between the EEOC and America First Legal, the Heritage Foundation and Stephen Miller, as well as agency policies, directives, speeches and other materials concerning discrimination against White workers. The Times also sought communications concerning its own reporters and coverage of the EEOC. The complaint alleges that although the agency acknowledged the requests and cited “unusual circumstances” requiring additional time, it did not produce the requested records or provide substantive updates within FOIA’s statutory timeframe.

The lawsuit comes amid an ongoing dispute between the EEOC and the Times. The EEOC sued the Times earlier this year, alleging that it discriminated against a White male employee by passing him over for a promotion because of his race and sex. The Times denies the allegations.

See also: NAACP Sues EEOC Over Withheld Records on White Male Complaint Solicitation (Issue 68); EEOC Files Suit Against the New York Times (Issue 64); The New York Times Fights Back Against EEOC Attack (Issue 73)