|
WEEKLY ISSUE 87 | October 23, 2026
|
|
|
|
|---|
|
Mitigate Risk. Lead with Clarity. |
|
|---|
|
MIDTERM WATCH - NEW
IN THIS ISSUE
ALSO INCLUDED |
|
|
|---|
|
PREVIOUSLY ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS | For continued reference these are the EOs targeting DEI and LGBTQ+ protections that have been issued:
We will continue to monitor activities that relate to these EOs either directly or indirectly. |
|
|
|---|
|
With the November midterm elections approaching, BRIDGE FORWARD is adding MIDTERM WATCH to track legal, policy and political developments to help businesses support informed and responsible civic engagement. |
|
|---|
| | | | | | OVERVIEW On October 15, 2026, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan, seeking to prevent certain mail-in ballots from being counted in the November 3 midterm elections until voters' citizenship can be verified.
The lawsuit follows a Department of Homeland Security analysis that federal officials say identified more than 20,000 registered California voters who may not be U.S. citizens. DOJ alleges that California failed to adequately investigate their eligibility after receiving federal notification and continued issuing ballots under the state's universal vote-by-mail system.
The DOJ is asking the court to require election officials to set aside ballots associated with the identified individuals pending citizenship verification. California officials dispute the allegations and question the reliability of the federal data. The allegations have not been established in court, and the identification of potential noncitizens does not establish that those individuals are ineligible to vote.
The lawsuit comes as the DOJ is reportedly considering additional election-related litigation in other states ahead of the midterms.
ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES - Monitor Election-Related Litigation: Track court rulings and new DOJ actions that could affect voter eligibility, ballot counting and election administration ahead of November 3.
- Prepare for Election Uncertainty: Ensure leadership, legal and communications teams are aligned on how to respond to contested election procedures, potential delays in results and misinformation.
- Reinforce Civic Participation: Encourage employees to participate in the democratic process through nonpartisan voter education and access to official election resources, while respecting individual political preferences.
| | | | | |
|
|---|
| | | | | |
OVERVIEW On October 19, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to race-neutral admissions criteria for middle school magnet programs in Montgomery County, Maryland. The case follows the Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), which restricted the use of race in college admissions, and concerns the legal standard for challenging policies that do not explicitly consider race but are alleged to have a discriminatory purpose.
Montgomery County, one of the nation's largest and most diverse school districts, revised its admissions process following a 2016 report identifying significant racial and socioeconomic disparities in enrollment and acceptance in its selective programs. In 2021, the district introduced universal screening for fifth-grade students, replacing an application-driven process. Students meeting academic benchmarks entered an eligibility pool, with selection also accounting for school poverty levels and academic performance relative to peers at the same school. Seats were then awarded through a lottery.
The Association for Education Fairness challenged the policy, alleging that the district intentionally sought to reduce Asian American enrollment. Lower courts rejected the challenge, finding insufficient evidence of disparate impact on Asian American applicants. The Supreme Court will consider whether plaintiffs alleging intentional discrimination must demonstrate aggregate disparate impact on the affected racial group to proceed with their claims.
LEGAL INTERPRETATION In Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard (2023), the Supreme Court restricted the use of race in college admissions but did not prohibit institutions from pursuing diversity through race-neutral measures. The Montgomery County case addresses what plaintiffs must demonstrate to establish that a facially race-neutral policy was intentionally discriminatory.
Under longstanding Equal Protection Clause precedent, facially neutral policies may violate the Constitution when adopted with discriminatory intent and resulting in discriminatory effects. The plaintiffs allege that Montgomery County's revised criteria were designed to disadvantage Asian American applicants. The lower courts rejected the challenge, finding that Asian American students continued to receive admissions offers at rates exceeding their representation in the applicant pool.
The Supreme Court will consider whether plaintiffs must establish aggregate disparate impact or whether other evidence of discriminatory purpose and effect may suffice.
The implications could extend beyond education. Although the case concerns public schools under the Equal Protection Clause, its reasoning could influence challenges to corporate inclusion practices under Title VII and Section 1981, which operate under different legal standards.
BRIDGE POV SFFA did not make inclusion unlawful. The Supreme Court restricted the use of race in admissions decisions, but it did not prohibit institutions from pursuing diversity, fairness, inclusion and opportunity through race-neutral means.
Organizations must be able to identify barriers, broaden participation and create opportunities without assuming that every effort to improve representation constitutes discrimination.
The priority should be to build inclusion into how organizations operate and compete, using lawful, evidence-based practices that expand opportunity for everyone. The goal is not to retreat from inclusion but to strengthen the capabilities that make it sustainable.
ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES - Reaffirm Commitment to Inclusion: Ensure leadership teams understand that SFFA did not prohibit lawful inclusion initiatives. Reinforce the organization's commitment to fairness and opportunity for everyone.
- Assess Legal Risk: Review existing inclusion programs with legal counsel to distinguish race-neutral practices from those involving race-based eligibility or selection criteria. Document legitimate business objectives and ensure policies comply with applicable nondiscrimination laws.
- Build Inclusion as an Organizational Capability: Embed inclusion into business strategy, leadership decision-making and operational practices. Equip teams with the skills, systems and accountability to identify barriers, expand opportunity and sustain progress without relying on race-based preferences.
See also: DOJ Finds Duke Law School Discriminated in Admissions (Issue 77); DOJ Issues Title VI Findings Letter Against UC Berkeley School of Law Over Admissions Discrimination (Issue 82) | | | | | |
|
|---|
|
FEDERAL FUNDING & OVERSIGHT |
|
|
|---|
|
| | | | | |
On October 19, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied most of the administration's request to stay an August district court order blocking the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from restructuring the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). The injunction largely remains in effect while the appeal proceeds.
Established by Congress in 1987, FHIP funds nonprofit organizations that investigate housing discrimination, educate consumers and assist individuals seeking to enforce their rights under the Fair Housing Act. HUD's proposed restructuring would have directed $46 million of the program's $56 million in funding to just five grants, potentially displacing many of the more than 100 organizations historically supported by the program.
The First Circuit granted HUD limited relief, temporarily suspending the requirement to issue new fiscal year 2025 funding notices, while leaving most of the injunction in place. The courts have not yet determined whether HUD's restructuring is lawful, and the appeal remains pending.
See also: CFPB Moves to Eliminate Disparate Impact Standards From Fair Lending Enforcement (Issue 64); Fair Housing Coalition Sues CFPB to Block Fair Lending Rollback (Issue 67) | | | | | |
|
|
|
|---|
|
| | | | | | On October 16 and 20, 2026 respectively, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Labor (DOL) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced separate settlements with Cloudera and Instacart over allegations that their recruitment practices under the Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) program discriminated against U.S. workers in favor of temporary visa holders.
Cloudera agreed to establish a $1.4 million back-pay fund, pay $600,000 in civil penalties and accept a two-year prohibition on PERM participation. Instacart agreed to establish a $4 million compensation fund and pay $1 million in civil penalties. Among the allegations against Instacart was a requirement that U.S. applicants physically mail applications rather than submit them electronically, creating additional barriers to employment.
The settlements reflect an explicit federal enforcement focus on discrimination against U.S. workers and workers of American national origin. DOJ relaunched its Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative in 2025, while the EEOC is pursuing claims of anti-American national origin discrimination through Project Firewall. The agencies are applying existing protections under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title VII and PERM regulations, rather than announcing new legal requirements.
See also: EEOC Chair Urges American Workers to Report National Origin Discrimination (Issue 82) | | | | | |
|
|
|
|---|
|
| | | | | |
On October 19, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education announced a voluntary settlement with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill resolving federal investigations into alleged antisemitism and race discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The university-wide agreement requires race-neutral admissions, scholarships, recruitment partnerships and student programming, prohibiting racial preferences and the use of racial proxies intended to influence student demographics. UNC must also establish a Title VI Coordinator, provide mandatory antisemitism training and strengthen procedures for investigating discrimination complaints.
The agreement remains in effect through December 31, 2028, with a designated administrator overseeing implementation and quarterly compliance reporting. In exchange, federal authorities will close specified investigations, and UNC will remain eligible for federal funding subject to compliance. UNC expressly denies wrongdoing and liability.
See also: DOJ Issues Title VI Findings Letter Against UC Berkeley School of Law Over Admissions Discrimination (Issue 82); DOJ Finds Duke Law School Discriminated in Admissions (Issue 77)
| | | | | |
|
|
|
|---|
|
| | | | | |
On October 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro denied Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast's motion to dismiss an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit alleging sex discrimination under Title VII. The case concerns a September 2024 women-only professional development retreat attended by approximately 250 employees, who received regular wages, paid lodging and meals without using personal time off.
The company argued that the event was a lawful effort to address the underrepresentation of women in its workforce and that excluded male employees suffered no actionable harm under the Supreme Court's Muldrow standard. The court rejected the argument that the alleged harm was insufficient to support a Title VII claim, allowing the case to proceed without determining whether discrimination occurred.
See also: EEOC Files Suit Against Coca-Cola Distributor Over Alleged Sex-Based Exclusion From Work Event (Issue 53); Democratic Women’s Caucus Urge EEOC to Drop Coca-Cola Suit (Issue 61)
| | | | | |
|
|
|
|---|
|
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.
With the 2026 Midterm Elections fast approaching, companies are navigating a volatile political and legal environment while employees and communities are feeling the stakes personally.
Join me and Valerie Irick Rainford, CEO, Ellorree Talent Strategies for our October Community Call as we discuss what responsible civic engagement looks like for business, how leaders can support participation, and why inclusion work should never be dependent on which party controls Washington.
When: Thursday, October 29th from 12-1p ET. | |
|
|
|---|
ABOUT BRIDGE FORWARD | | | | | | | Led by BRIDGE, FORWARD is a weekly leadership briefing that distills the most consequential legal, political, and reputational developments shaping DEI and inclusive growth. Each issue provides legal interpretation, BRIDGE’s point of view, and actionable strategies to help leaders safeguard trust, anticipate risk and make credible value-based decisions in a volatile environment.
Who it’s for: CMOs, CCOs, Chief DEI Officers, GCs, Heads of Risk, CHROs, and senior leaders across DEI, marketing, brand, policy, and legal functions. FOR PAST ISSUES OF BRIDGE FORWARD WEEKLY GUIDANCE PLEASE VISIT HERE. *These BRIDGE 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. | | | | | |
|
|
|
|---|
 | |
|  | |
| |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
|
| 1276 Auto Park Way Suite D, PMB 183, Escondido, CA 92029 |
| This email was sent to {{ contact.EMAIL }} |
| You've received it because you've subscribed to our newsletter. |
| |
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
