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
   

We will continue to monitor activities that relate to these EOs either directly or indirectly.

CVS HEALTH BOARD REJECTS ANTI-DEI PROPOSAL

• SEC Letter to CVS Health

 

OVERVIEW
In Jan 2025, CVS Health faced a shareholder proposal from the National Center for Public Policy Research, urging the company to end its participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Corporate Equality Index (CEI). The CEI is a benchmarking tool that evaluates corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ workplace equality. The proposal contended that CVS’s involvement in the CEI aligned the company with divisive political issues, potentially alienating customers and harming shareholder value.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

CVS Health’s Board of Directors rejected the proposal, recommending its exclusion from its proxy materials, asserting the proposal sought to interfere with the company’s ordinary business and made "materially false or misleading statements." On March 25, 2025, The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concurred, allowing CVS to omit the proposal from its proxy materials under Rule 14a-8(i)(7), which permits exclusion of proposals related to a company’s ordinary business operations.  

 

BRIDGE POV 

The decision signals CVS Health’s continued commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion as a strategic priority even amid broad unwarranted attacks against the practice. By upholding its participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, the company reinforces its commitment to fostering an inclusive workplace, aligned with its core values as a standard business practice - essential for serving their communities to drive long-term success.

 

1. Courage in the Face of Bullying: Despite the ongoing attacks against the practice, companies that remain committed to their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts are winning in the marketplace
2. The Broader the Practice, the Lower the Risk:  When inclusion practices are embedded across the organization creating workplace to marketplace impact they become less vulnerable to attack and present a transformational opportunity for growth
3. 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

THE DOJ AGAINST SOUTHWEST AIRLINES

• American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Southwest Airlines 

 

OVERVIEW

In May 2024, the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER)- a group founded by  Edward Blum, the architect behind the Supreme Court case dismantling affirmative action in higher education - sued Southwest Airlines. The lawsuit challenges a travel rewards program designed for Hispanic students, alleging it violates Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which makes it unlawful to make or enforce contracts on the basis of race.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

In August 2024, Southwest irrevocably and unconditionally suspended the program. As a result, in December 2024, the federal district court dismissed most of AAER’s claims, ruling that it no longer had authority to determine the legality of a discontinued program. The only remaining claims are for nominal damages—typically symbolic, and sometimes assessed at as little as $1.
 

Yet in March 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in support of AAER. While this filing has no effect on the dismissed claims, it underscores the DOJ’s broader posture: using civil rights statutes to challenge identity-based initiatives, even retroactively and symbolically.

 

BRIDGE POV 

This case exemplifies a shifting legal strategy: weaponizing laws originally meant to protect underrepresented groups to instead dismantle DEI programs. The DOJ’s involvement—despite the case being effectively moot—serves more as a political signal than a legal intervention.
 

1. Audit and Future-Proof Identity-Based Programs: Review existing initiatives—especially those offering financial benefits, travel, or contractual value—to ensure they are legally sound. Where appropriate, reframe eligibility criteria to emphasize broader inclusion while still achieving equity goals (e.g., focusing on underserved communities or first-generation students rather than on race or ethnicity).
2. Strengthen the Business Case and Operational Alignment: Clearly connect each initiative to core business objectives, such as talent acquisition, market reach, or community engagement
3. Build with Legal and Cross-Functional Collaboration from the Start: Involve legal counsel early in the design of programs that may touch on protected characteristics. Ensure cross-functional teams—including DEI, legal, communications, and brand—collaborate to align language, intent, and execution
4. Be Prepared for Scrutiny: Don’t operate out of fear - have a communications and legal playbook ready—one that is transparent, principled, and rooted in company values
5. Don’t Retreat, Redesign: While the risk environment has changed, the need for inclusion and equity has not. Find ways to evolve your practices and embed them more consistently across the organization

GROWING RESISTANCE FROM THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR AS HARVARD REJECTS TRUMPS DEMANDS AND LAW FIRMS BAND TOGETHER

• The Promise of American Education

 

OVERVIEW

On April 14, 2025, in a show of courage, Harvard University publicly rejected the Trump administration’s sweeping demands to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, overhaul admissions and hiring practices, and submit to federal oversight of academic content and governance.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

University President Alan Garber asserted that these demands infringed upon Harvard’s constitutional rights and institutional autonomy. He emphasized that “no government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” Garber criticized the administration’s approach, stating that while some demands were framed as efforts to combat antisemitism, the majority represented direct governmental regulation of Harvard’s intellectual environment. He concluded that the university would not accept the proposed agreement, reaffirming Harvard’s commitment to its independence and constitutional protections.  
 

In response, the administration froze $2.3 billion in federal funding and threatened to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status. Harvard’s stance has garnered support from other academic institutions and public figures, highlighting a broader conflict between federal authority and academic freedom.  

 

In addition, hundreds of law firms have signed an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit filed by Perkins Coie, which challenges the Trump Administration’s attempt to pressure the firm into an involuntary settlement. These actions reflect a growing resistance among targeted entities—both public and private—to what they view as abusive enforcement tactics and overreach. Rather than capitulate, these organizations are asserting their right to autonomy in managing their operations. This emerging pushback likely won’t prompt the Administration to reconsider its approach, but at a minimum, it will force the courts to evaluate the legality and limits of these enforcement efforts under existing federal law.

 

BRIDGE POV 

Harvard’s refusal to comply with federal overreach—joined by hundreds of law firms supporting legal resistance through the courts—signals a shift. Key institutions are no longer adjusting quietly behind the scenes; they are standing firm in public view. This growing coalition reflects not just legal defiance, but a principled stand for constitutional rights, institutional autonomy, and the rule of law.

 

This coordinated show of resistance is not against accountability, but coercion. When government abuses the rule of law to advance an ideological agenda, it becomes the responsibility of the academic, legal and business communities to not only defend their institutions but to set precedent for how power must be  lawfully and ethically exercised in a democracy. 
 

1. Lead with Courage: Don’t retreat in silence—reaffirm your core values and commit to inclusion, autonomy and lawful governance, internally and externally
2. Stand with Peers: Join collective efforts—through coalitions, public statements, or industry advocacy—to protect institutional autonomy
3. Model Integrity: Ensure that DEI and governance practices are transparent, lawful, and grounded in business strategy—not political pressure.

RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING SUPPLIER DIVERSITY PROGRAMS

• Ultima Services Corporation v. U.S. Department of Agriculture et al, No. 2:2020cv00041 - Document 86 (E.D. Tenn. 2023) :: Justia
• NUZIARD v. MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (2024) | FindLaw
• Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy – The White House
• American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Management, LLC 
• Cases | Advancing DEI Initiative

 

OVERVIEW

Recent court rulings, executive actions, and regulatory changes have altered the legal terrain for supplier diversity programs. These developments reflect a growing trend to limit or dismantle programs that explicitly prioritize race in the allocation of economic opportunity. This section outlines key developments and provides strategic guidance for companies navigating these shifts.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Recent court decisions have reshaped the legal foundation for supplier diversity programs, particularly those that rely on race-based eligibility. In July 2023, a federal district court in Tennessee ruled that the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) use of race to determine eligibility for its 8(a) program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

 

Similarly, in March 2024, a federal district court in Texas held that the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) acted unconstitutionally by offering programs exclusively for minority-owned businesses. Both courts relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, which found that race-conscious admissions policies in higher education violate the Equal Protection Clause.

 

The Biden Administration opted not to appeal these rulings. Instead, it moved swiftly to bring both programs into compliance with the new legal standards. Under the revised SBA 8(a) program, businesses can no longer qualify based solely on minority ownership. All applicants must now individually certify and provide evidence of “social disadvantage” to qualify—an approach intended to withstand constitutional scrutiny. The only exceptions to this requirement are businesses owned by Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, Native Hawaiian Organizations, or Community Development Corporations.

 

Meanwhile, although the MBDA was initially created by Executive Order in 1969, it was made permanent by Congress through the Minority Business Development Act of 2021. Nevertheless, in March 2025, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order directing that the MBDA be “eliminated to the maximum extent” permitted by law. Given its now-codified status, however, any attempt to dismantle the agency outright would require an act of Congress.

 

Adding to the legal complexity, private lawsuits have increasingly targeted corporate programs that prioritize race in contracting. These lawsuits, brought under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, challenge race-based grant and vendor programs on the grounds that they unlawfully consider race in the making or enforcement of contracts. The most widely publicized case was filed against the Fearless Fund, a Black woman-owned venture capital firm, for its grant program exclusively supporting Black women entrepreneurs. A federal appeals court issued a preliminary injunction, finding the program likely violated Section 1981, and the case ultimately settled with the grant program discontinued.

 

According to litigation trackers such as the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging, dozens of similar lawsuits have emerged. In several cases, courts have ruled these race-exclusive programs unlawful under current civil rights law. Others have settled before a decision was reached, but the legal trend is clear: race-exclusive eligibility criteria—particularly those tied to financial or contractual benefit—face increasing risk of challenge.

 

BRIDGE POV 

The recent legal rulings do not erase the need for supplier diversity—they simply indicate that we evolve how it’s implemented. The attack on race-based programs cannot be a rejection of equity—it must be considered as a recalibration of how equity can be pursued under law. 
 

The goal remains unchanged: to expand access to economic opportunity for businesses historically excluded from corporate supply chains. But the path forward requires a shift from programs that rely solely on racial classification to those that consider a broader, more legally durable set of criteria—social disadvantage, historical underrepresentation, or barriers to market entry.
 

This is an evolving challenge—one the industry must confront together to preserve the original purpose and values behind supplier diversity programs. 
 

1. Redesign for Resilience: Shift from race-exclusive criteria to race-aware frameworks that use multiple indicators of disadvantage—such as geographic, economic, and industry underrepresentation—to broaden program eligibility while retaining equity impact.
2. Strengthen Documentation and Rationale: Ensure every supplier diversity initiative is grounded in business need. Document how diverse supplier inclusion drives innovation, mitigates supply chain risk, enhances brand equity, and serves evolving market demographics.
3. Establish Cross-Functional Legal Review: Formalize a process that brings together DEI, procurement, and legal teams to review existing and future programs. This ensures alignment with current legal standards and prepares the company to respond quickly to new rulings or challenges.

GOP STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL FOLLOW THE EEOC LEAD IN REQUESTING INFORMATION ABOUT DEI PRACTICES FROM 20 LAW FIRMS

• 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
• Letter from Texas AG Ken Paxton 

 

OVERVIEW

As previously outlined in Issue 4, on March 17, Acting Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Andrea Lucas issued letters to 20 prominent law firms requesting detailed documentation of their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The letters raised concerns about potential Title VII violations. 

 

The following day, on March 18, seven former EEOC Chairs and Commissioners issued a formal letter to Acting Chair Lucas expressing “grave concerns” about the inquiry, stating that the order exceeds the agency’s enforcement duties under law.

 

Now, on April 1, 2025, a coalition of twelve (12) State Attorneys General, led by Texas AG Ken Paxton, sent a letter to the same 20 law firms. This letter mirrors the EEOC’s request, demanding the same DEI-related documentation. The law firms were given until  April 15, 2025 to respond to both the federal and state-level demands. 
 

None of the 20 corporate law firms targeted by the letters are headquartered in Texas, but 13 of the firms have offices in Austin, Dallas or Houston.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The State AGs’ letter asserts that the law firms’ DEI practices may violate not only federal anti-discrimination law, but also state civil rights and deceptive trade practices laws.
 

Most states have their own civil rights laws that mirror federal protections against employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability. Some states go further, prohibiting discrimination on additional bases not covered by federal law, while others offer narrower protections.
 

For example, among the State AGs who signed the signed the letter: Texas's anti-discrimination law largely mirrors federal law and has been interpreted by courts to include protections for sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression. Whereas, Alaska’s statute extends beyond federal law by also prohibiting discrimination based on marital status. In contrast, Alabama’s statute prohibits age discrimination but does not provide protections based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability.

 

In addition to differences in coverage, state courts interpret anti-discrimination statutes in ways that may align with, expand upon, or narrow federal standards. As a result, employers may face liability under state law even when no violation exists under federal law—making state-level exposure a more likely risk in many jurisdictions.

 

Coupled with citing state anti-discrimination laws, the State AGs have pointed to state deceptive trade practices statutes as a potential basis for liability tied to corporate DEI efforts. This approach—leveraging commercial law rather than civil rights law—is consistent with the lawsuit filed by the Florida Attorney General (also a signatory to the law firm letter) against Target Corporation, alleging that its DEI practices violated fiduciary and commercial obligations.

 

BRIDGE POV 

While these commercial law claims are generally more legally tenuous than anti-discrimination claims, they reflect a broader strategy signaling that opponents of DEI are deploying every available legal theory- regardless of precedent or fit - to challenge inclusion efforts.  The use of terms like “illegal DEI practices” in letters and executive orders does not change the legal status of those practices.  What was lawful before the current administration remains lawful now unless and until courts rule otherwise.
 

1. Understand your potential exposure: Companies should consult legal counsel to assess exposure not only under anti-discrimination laws, but also under state and federal commercial laws that may be applied to your DEI strategies
2. Scenario Plan for Potential Legal Inquiries: Develop internal protocols for responding to government letters, subpoenas, or third-party legal challenges related to DEI—so you’re not reacting under pressure if scrutiny arrives
3. Engage in Policy Monitoring and Industry Coalitions: Track emerging state and federal actions that could impact DEI, and actively participate in business coalitions or trade groups shaping the response. Collective advocacy is a powerful tool to influence legal interpretation and public narrative especially in a hostile environment.

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!