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.

MARRIOTT CEO SPEAKS OUT ABOUT DEI, GOLDMAN SACHS AND LEVI STRAUSS SHAREHOLDERS REJECT ANTI-DEI PROPOSALS

• Marriott CEO on the future of DEI 
• Goldman Sachs shareholders reject two anti-DEI proposals
• Levi Strauss shareholders voted to reject a proposal to abolish DEI efforts

 

OVERVIEW
Marriott International CEO Anthony Capuano recently reaffirmed the company’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Speaking at the Great Place to Work For All Summit in Las Vegas, Capuano emphasized that Marriott’s dedication to welcoming all guests and creating opportunities for all employees has been a fundamental truth throughout its 98-year history. He stated, “The winds blow, but there are some fundamental truths for those 98 years. We welcome all to our hotels, and we create opportunities for all—and fundamentally, those will never change. The words might change, but that’s who we are as a company."

 

Despite the current climate, Capuano chose to publicly reinforce Marriott’s long-standing values. His message resonated deeply within the organization; within 24 hours, he received over 40,000 emails from Marriott associates worldwide expressing their gratitude for upholding the company’s commitment to inclusivity. 

 

At Goldman Sachs’ annual shareholder meeting on April 23, 2025, investors overwhelmingly rejected two shareholder proposals aimed at dismantling the firm’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Each proposal garnered tallies of 98-2 percent.
 

Details of the Proposals:

1. Removal of DEI Metrics from Executive Compensation: This proposal, submitted by the National Legal and Policy Center, sought to eliminate DEI-related goals from executive incentive plans, labeling them as potentially discriminatory.
2. Independent Racial Discrimination: Proposed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, this measure called for an audit to assess the legal and reputational risks associated with Goldman's race-based initiatives.
    

Goldman’s board recommended voting against both proposals, asserting that diversity—including diversity of thought, experience, and perspectives—is vital to the firm’s commercial success. The board emphasized that DEI considerations are not used as quotas in executive compensation decisions. 

 

At Levi Strauss & Co.‘s annual shareholder meeting on April 23, 2025, investors decisively rejected a proposal to dismantle the company’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The proposal, introduced by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) resulted in approximately 99% of shareholders voting against it.

 

The company’s board had unanimously recommended voting against the proposal, emphasizing that DEI principles are integral to Levi’s business strategy and corporate culture. In their proxy statement, the board state:

 

“Diversity and inclusion principles are critical in ensuring that our products reflect and are relevant to our diverse global consumer base. We believe in the strong business case for a diverse and inclusive workforce because it supports company performance and also enhances our culture and the well-being of those who make our Company thrive: our employees."

 

BRIDGE POV 

Courageous leadership isn’t about being loud—it’s about being clear. These three companies prove that when you ground DEI in core business principles, engage your stakeholders with transparency, and refuse to waiver when it matters most, you don’t just defend inclusion — you expand your strategic advantage.
 

1. Values-Driven Leadership Builds Resilient Cultures: Make decisions grounded in clear values and the legacy of what has driven your success. 
2. Embedding DEI as a Growth Driver: DEI is a multifaceted practice that bridges workplace and marketplace impact. 
3. Courage at the Boardroom Table Strengthens the Global Economy: Boards and executive teams must lead visibly and decisively. In a moment of heightened scrutiny, ambiguity is risky.

STARBUCKS FILES MOTION TO DISMISS IN MISSOURI CASE

• State Of Missouri Ex Rel. Andrew Bailey, Attorney General Of Missouri v. Starbucks
• Defendant Starbucks Corp.’s Memorandum In Support of Its Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction

 

OVERVIEW

The Missouri suit against Starbucks alleges liability under both federal and state anti-discrimination laws stating that Starbucks "ties compensation to racial and sex-based quotes, discriminates on the basis of race and sex in training and advancement opportunities, and discriminates on the basis of race and sex with respect to its board membership." 

 

On Monday April 7, 2025 Starbucks filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit contending that the Attorney General lacks the authority to enforce anti-discrimination laws in federal court. The motion further alleges that the complaint fails to identify specific conduct constituting unlawful discrimination. Starbucks further argues that the complaint relies on conclusory allegations of unlawful conduct which are broad, unsupported and insufficient as a matter of law.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Missouri Attorney General’s lawsuit against Starbucks invokes both federal and state anti-discrimination laws. However, Starbucks’ motion to dismiss argues that the Attorney General lacks standing to enforce federal anti-discrimination statutes, which are the exclusive domain of the EEOC and U.S. Department of Justice.
 

The motion further contends that Missouri law restricts enforcement of state anti-discrimination claims to state court, rendering the federal filing procedurally improper.

Substantively, the motion asserts that the complaint fails to allege specific, actionable conduct that would constitute unlawful discrimination, relying instead on broad and conclusory assertions insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
 

If granted, the motion would bar the Attorney General from pursuing federal claims against Starbucks but may be permitted to refile the state anti-discrimination claims in state court.

 

BRIDGE POV 

This case reflects a broader trend of state-level political actors using litigation to challenge corporate DEI frameworks. It raises critical questions about jurisdictional authority and the evidentiary thresholds for discrimination claims.

 

This moment calls for both legal precision and strategic resolve. Companies that lead with clarity, compliance, and conviction will be best positioned to withstand—and move beyond—this wave of politicized scrutiny.

 

1. Ground DEI in Legally Sound Strategy: Structure DEI policies—especially those tied to compensation or board composition—around opportunity, not quotas. Proactively audit programs through both the federal and state legal lens.
2. DEI, Business and Legal Collaboration is Key: Maintain clear documentation of how DEI programs are designed, implemented, and evaluated, aligning efforts to business strategy and marketplace impact
3. Anticipate Legal Challenges: State-level actors are testing the limits of legal authority. Be prepared with a clear legal position, internal alignment, and the conviction and courage to defend your strategy.

HARVARD v TRUMP: A DEFINING LEGAL BATTLE FOR INSTITUTIONAL AUTONOMY

• Harvard’s Complaint Against the Trump Administration 
• A Group of 180 Public and Private College and University Presidents Issue a Signed Statement

 

OVERVIEW

On April 21, Harvard University filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration after the government froze approximately $2 billion in research funding. The lawsuit follows the university’s refusal to comply with demands that it dismantle all DEI-related educational programs, revise admissions and hiring practices designed to support diversity, and discipline faculty and students for speech that the Administration deemed objectionable. The suit marks a significant escalation in the ongoing political targeting of higher education institutions that maintain inclusion-focused policies and practices.

 

At the heart of Harvard’s legal challenge is the assertion that the Administration’s actions violate the First Amendment. The university argues that its academic freedom—including the right to determine institutional priorities, develop curricula, and manage internal affairs free from political coercion—is protected by the Constitution. In addition, the suit alleges that the freezing of federal funds was executed without adherence to the established legal procedures required for the suspension or termination of such funding. These procedures, set forth in federal law, were allegedly bypassed entirely, amounting to an unlawful exercise of executive authority.

 

One day after the lawsuit was filed, a coalition of 180 presidents of public and private colleges and universities issued a public statement condemning the Administration’s actions. The signatories described the government’s conduct as “unprecedented government overreach and political interference,” warning that it poses a direct threat to the independence of American higher education and the principles on which it is built. The coordinated response represents a rare and forceful rebuke from the academic sector, signaling growing concern over the erosion of institutional autonomy in the face of political agendas.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Together, the Harvard lawsuit and the joint statement from university presidents constitute a unified show of opposition to the Trump Administration’s assault on DEI in institutions of higher education. 

 

Harvard is seeking expedited judicial relief - in the form of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction - to compel the Administration to restore access to frozen federal funds pending litigation on the merits of the action. 

 

Filed in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the suit follows a recent ruling from the same court temporarily blocking the Administration from terminating federal grants in a similar case. Given that precedent, Harvard has a strong likelihood of obtaining a favorable ruling.

 

BRIDGE POV 

The Harvard lawsuit marks a pivotal legal moment bound to set legal precedent. This case represents more than a dispute over research funding—it is a constitutional confrontation over the boundaries of government power, the future of DEI in institutions, and the fundamental question of whether federal funding should be conditioned on political ideological compliance. 

 

Harvard’s response coupled with the coordinated statement from 180 university presidents underscores the importance of protecting institutional autonomy in the face of political interference. The private sector should take note: the defense of academic freedom in higher education offers a model for how business leaders can safeguard their own governance, workforce strategy, and core values when they come under similar pressure.

 

1. Reaffirm Institutional Independence: Have the courage of your convictions. Make clear your organization’s right- and responsibility - to define its own policies, programs and values.
2. Monitor Cross-Sector Legal Developments: Track litigation that may set legal or cultural precedent. Where appropriate, lend public support to institutions standing firm against ideological or political pressure.
3. Courage is Contagious: Draw strength from institutions that are defending autonomy and civil rights. Build coalitions that reinforce the legitimacy of independent governance in both the public and private sectors.

EEOC SETTLES WITH 4 LAW FIRMS TARGETED FOR INVESTIGATION AND LAW STUDENTS SUE THE EEOC

• 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
• Law Students Sue EEOC over Investigative Letters (NEW)

 

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.

 

While not admitting any liability, four of the 20 firms have reached multi-year settlements with the EEOC.  As part of the settlement, they “affirmed their commitment to lawful merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention; agreed not to engage in unlawful discrimination or preferences based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics, including in any policies, programs, and practices previously labeled, characterized, or framed as a diversity or DEI program; agreed to no longer categorize any lawful employment or practices (including those addressing equal employment opportunity, accessibility, or reasonable accommodation for religion, disability, or pregnancy) as DEI; and agreed to compliance monitoring.” 

 

In another twist, on April 15, three law students filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to compel the EEOC to withdraw its investigative inquiries into 20 major law firms. The suit alleges that the EEOC exceeded its legal authority by requesting sensitive personal data about job applicants and employees dating back six to ten years.

 

Filed under pseudonyms and represented by the nonprofit Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs are also asking the court to order the EEOC to return and delete any information it has already collected. The case challenges the scope and legality of the EEOC’s investigatory tactics in relation to corporate DEI practices.

 

This lawsuit marks the latest legal pushback against the federal government’s effort to scrutinize DEI practices at major law firms and challenging the EEOC’s authority to collect personal data absent a formal charge of discrimination.

 

According to the complaint, the EEOC has requested highly sensitive information from the firms, including the plaintiffs’ names, race, sex, academic performance, compensation history, and contact information. The students argue that this broad data request violates the EEOC’s statutory limits, which only permit investigations after a specific charge is filed. The suit also alleges that the agency failed to follow strict confidentiality requirements mandated by law.

 

The plaintiffs contend that these investigatory demands, issued under the direction of acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, pose risks to their privacy and professional standing, and have asked the court to order the withdrawal of the letters and deletion of any data collected.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The settlements between the EEOC and the four law firms do not represent findings of liability and carry no precedent in defining unlawful conduct under federal anti-discrimination law. These agreements are voluntary resolutions, not judicial determinations, and cannot be used to establish legal standards or obligations for other institutions.

 

As with the Administration’s enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws against colleges and universities, some targeted firms will choose to settle with the Administration (like Columbia University), while others will choose to resist any improper exercise of the Administration’s enforcement authority (like Harvard University). 

 

Ultimately, it is the role of the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, to interpret federal law and determine the bounds of lawful and unlawful conduct.

 

Additionally, the lawsuit brought forth by the three students challenges the EEOC’s authority to initiate broad investigations absent a formal charge of discrimination, as required under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs argue that the agency’s request for personal data from law firms—without a filed charge or identified respondent—exceeds its statutory mandate and violates confidentiality provisions built into federal anti-discrimination law.

 

If the court finds that the EEOC acted outside its legal authority, it could limit the agency’s ability to pursue similar DEI-related inquiries moving forward, reinforcing procedural safeguards around how and when federal investigations may be launched.

 

BRIDGE POV 

The recent EEOC settlements with four major law firms reflect a broader shift in federal enforcement, one not grounded in new law, but in political reinterpretation. These settlements do not establish legal precedent, nor do they reflect findings of unlawful conduct.

 

Furthermore, the lawsuit filed by law students highlights growing concern over the government’s expansive use of investigatory power to scrutinize DEI practices absent clear legal grounds. Broad data requests without formal charges risk set troubling precedents for how privacy and due process are treated in the context of DEI.

 

What’s emerging is a clear pattern of enforcement that increasingly blurs the line between regulatory oversight and ideological pressure. 

 

1. Settlements are not Legal benchmarks: Settlement agreements—particularly those without findings of liability—should not be treated as proxies for legal standards.. Organizational decisions must remain anchored in existing law, not in perceived or inferred risk.
2. Don’t Compromise Core Values: Recent market reactions have shown that when companies abandon long-held values in response to political pressure, brand trust and financial performance can suffer. Your values are not liabilities to be compromised - they are assets to be treated as the heart and soul of your company.
3. Leadership Alignment is Key: Executives, legal teams and stakeholders must be unified in their readiness to respond to potential scrutiny with confidence and clarity, rooted in policy and the rule of law, not ideological or political shifts.

FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL ANNOUNCES STATE WON’T HIRE OUTSIDE LAW FIRMS WHO ENGAGE IN DEI PRACTICES

• Florida Office of the Attorney General Policy Memorandum

 

OVERVIEW

In an undated document titled “Policy Memorandum,” Florida Attorney General James Uthemeier declared that both DEI and ESG initiatives violate anti-discrimination law. As a result, effectively immediately, the Attorney General’s Office will no longer engage or approve any law firm to perform services for the State if that firm engages in DEI or ESG practices. 

 

The memorandum aligns to ongoing efforts of the EEOC in similarly targeting certain law firms (as outlined previously and above). It further identifies discrete DEI efforts deemed unlawful with Florida’s interpretation of civil rights law, including: Mansfield Certification, Diversity Scorecards, Diversity Hiring, Promotion, and Contracting, Diversity Fellowships, Diversity Mentoring Programs, DEI websites, and Workplace Diversity Training.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Florida Attorney General’s memorandum announcing a ban on hiring law firms that engage in DEI or ESG practices lacks any cited legal authority to support its claim that such practices are unlawful. Nor does the memo establish a statutory basis for enforcing anti-discrimination law through this policy directive.

 

Under federal law, enforcement authority for workplace discrimination—specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—rests solely with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and, in certain cases, the U.S. Department of Justice. The Florida Attorney General has no independent enforcement power under Title VII.

 

At the state level, an analogous anti-discrimination statute, the Florida Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination in employment and related areas, with enforcement primarily vested in the Florida Human Relations Commission. While the Office of Civil Rights within the Attorney General’s Office may litigate civil rights claims, it does not have investigatory authority and does not function as the state’s primary enforcement body.

 

Importantly, while the Attorney General does have the authority to determine which outside counsel may represent the State, the decision to prohibit law firms based on their DEI practices does not constitute a legal determination of wrongdoing under either federal or state law. Nor does it represent the exercise of formal enforcement power under any anti-discrimination statute.

 

Accordingly, the lawfulness of any firms’ DEI practices under federal or state anti-discrimination law is reserved to the EEOC, the Florida Human Relations Commission, and ultimately to federal and state courts charged with interpreting federal and state anti-discrimination law in the context of filed charges or litigated cases alleging wrongdoing.

 

BRIDGE POV 

The Florida Attorney General’s directive to prohibit law firms with DEI or ESG practices is legal overreach framed as policy. It lacks statutory authority, cites no precedent, and does not represent formal enforcement under federal or state anti-discrimination law.

 

This move reflects a broader trend: using political ideology to pressure institutions into abandoning lawful, values-driven strategies.  And it raises serious concerns about the politicization of legitimate and lawful business practices, which are tied to future innovation, competitiveness and long-term growth.

 

Leaders must remain grounded in the law—not political opinion—and prepared to defend the integrity of their organizational values and legal compliance.

 

1. Anticipate Politicized Procurement Risks: Recognize that public-sector engagement may increasingly be conditioned on ideological alignment. Be prepared with response strategies that protect both principle and business continuity.
2. Elevate Legal Authority: Where appropriate participate in  industry coalitions or amicus briefs to reinforce the rule of law should guide procurement standards
3. Reaffirm the Legality of DEI Practices: Reinforce that your company’s inclusion efforts are lawful, merit-based and aligned with both business strategy and civil rights compliance

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, May 29th 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!