The "Restoring Biological Truth to the Workplace Act" isn't about truth, it's about protecting bigotry

It's called the Restoring Biological Truth to the Workplace Act.

But let's be honest: it's just a license to discriminate.

Senator Jim Banks' recently introduced bill isn't about truth. It's about control. And cruelty. It would allow employees to misgender their transgender colleagues with impunity and prohibit employers from enforcing any workplace policies that require respect for a person's gender identity.

When immigration policy change overnight…

What's an employer supposed to do when immigration policy shifts overnight?

That's the question employers across the country are now facing. More than 500,000 immigrant workers—who entered the U.S. legally under a humanitarian parole program—were recently told to leave their jobs and “self-deport” after the Department of Homeland Security abruptly ended the program.

The headlines are emotional. The legal issues are complex.

Generally, if an employee has a properly completed I-9 form, the employer is not liable for hiring someone who later turns out to be unauthorized. As long as the documents provided at the time of hire reasonably appear genuine and relate to the employee, you're in the clear. That's exactly how the system is meant to work.

This situation, however, is different. In this case, the government is notifying employers that certain employees' immigration status has changed—and that they are no longer authorized to remain in the U.S. Still, even under these circumstances, telling an employee to "self-deport" carries legal risk.

The fiduciary case for DEI

Corporate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives are not just about social responsibility. They're also about business performance.

Studies from McKinsey and others have consistently shown that diverse teams drive innovation, enhance risk mitigation, improve decision-making, and ultimately deliver stronger revenue and profits. Indeed, according to McKinsey, companies in the top quartile for gender or ethnic diversity on executive teams are 39% more likely to outperform their peers financially compared to those in the bottom quartile, while those that rank in the top quartile for both are, on average, 9% more likely to outperform their peers. Conversely, companies in the bottom quartile for both are 66% less likely to achieve above-average profitability. 

In other words, diversity = profits.

When rights collide: religious beliefs vs. gender identity in the workplace

An employee tells HR, "I can't use my coworker's preferred pronouns. It's against my religion." What now?

This isn't theoretical or hypothetical—it's happening in businesses across the country. Just ask Spencer Wimmer, a former Generac Power Systems employee who refused to use a transgender colleague's pronouns on the basis of his Christian faith and was fired as a result. He's now filed an EEOC charge, claiming religious discrimination.

This is not an isolated development. It's the front lines of a growing legal and cultural tension: What happens when one person's protected rights collide with another's?

Here's my take: We can't use religion as a license to discriminate.

DEI-washing

Verizon just made headlines — by eliminating its entire DEI program. In a memo to the FCC, the company announced sweeping changes:

NO DEI roles or departments

NO DEI references in training materials

NO demographic hiring goals

NO supplier diversity benchmarks

NO scholarships or internships targeted at underrepresented groups

NO diversity-focused recognition surveys.

NO mention of “diversity, equity, or inclusion” on its website or in recruiting materials

NO mention of “diversity, equity, or inclusion” in recruiting materials

And yet, despite this full-scale rollback, Verizon insists it remains "committed to … an inclusive culture."

Let me be very, very clear: You cannot claim to support inclusion while dismantling every tool you've built to achieve it. That's like closing your fire department while saying you're committed to fire safety.

What do dolls have in common with beer?

“Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30.”

That was Donald Trump’s response yesterday when asked about the impact of tariffs on imported consumer goods.

Charming.

But here’s the thing—those tariffs aren’t just about dolls. They hit a lot closer to home for small businesses, like the craft breweries I work with.

I spent the past four days at the national Craft Brewers Conference, and tariffs weighed heavily on every single attendee.

Holy hypocrisy: When "religious freedom" only protects one religion

"My Administration will not tolerate … unlawful conduct targeting Christians.…My Administration will ensure that any unlawful and improper conduct, policies, or practices that target Christians are identified, terminated, and rectified."

That's the key takeaway from Trump's Executive Order on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.

What does that look like in practice? According to Politico, the State Department has ordered employees "to report on any instances of coworkers displaying 'anti-Christian bias.'" The internal memo allows (but doesn't require) anonymous reporting and encourages submissions to be "as detailed as possible, including names, dates, [and] locations (e.g., post or domestic office where the incident occurred)."

Understanding the difference between legal and illegal DEI

If you want to understand the difference between legal and illegal DEI, here's what illegal looks like.

From The Hollywood Reporter: "CBS Studios has settled a lawsuit from a script coordinator for SEAL Team, who accused parent company Paramount of carrying illegal diversity quotas that discriminate against straight white men."

In the lawsuit, Brian Beneker alleged he was denied a job after Paramount implemented an "illegal policy of race and sex balancing" that prioritized hiring less qualified applicants who identified as minorities, LGBTQ+, or women.

Here's the legal reality — Quotas and preferences based on protected characteristics are unlawful. Title VII requires that employers hire the most qualified person for the job, regardless of race, sex, or any other protected trait.

But what if you want to improve representation of marginalized groups in your workplace, and do it legally?

If you wanted to know what a Constitutional Crisis looks like…

What happens when the Attorney General refuses to follow a Supreme Court order? We are about to find out.

Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ordered the federal government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. from his deportation to an El Salvador torture prison. The decision was clear: the deportation was illegal, and the government was required to undo it.

Yet, Attorney General Pam Bondi is refusing to comply. She has made no efforts to return Mr. Abrego Garcia, despite a binding court order. "He is not coming back to our country," according to Bondi.

That is not how the rule of law works.

American Gestapo

Federal agents at Detroit Metro Airport detained attorney Amir Makled for 90 minutes. They asked him about his clients. They asked to search his phone.

Why? Because he represents a pro-Palestinian protester arrested at the University of Michigan.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Makled refused to turn over his phone, citing attorney-client privilege. But the message was clear: represent the "wrong" person, and you might be next.

This is not an isolated incident. It's part of a dangerous pattern. It's evidence of our quickening slide into authoritarianism. When the authorities target lawyers just for doing their jobs, democracy is on life support.

A day without associates

BigLaw is under attack—not just from Trump's executive orders targeting law firms that have historically supported his political opponents or oppose his current policies, but from their own employees.

Above the Law reports that associates at some of the nation's biggest law firms are considering going on "recruitment strikes" (i.e., refusing to participate in law student recruiting) if their employers fail to push back against Trump's unlawful orders.

What if these associates take it one step further and actually walk off the job in protest? Would the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protect their concerted work stoppage?

A teachable moment on digital communication security

An editor at The Atlantic was accidentally added to a high-level Signal group chat where Trump administration officials were planning military strikes in Yemen.

Yes, you read that right. A journalist, in a chat with top government officials, while they were actively discussing where and when to launch missiles.

It's an appalling breach of national security. It’s also a teachable moment for employers.

If the highest of federal officials can accidentally include a reporter in a thread outlining imminent military action, your company's employees can accidentally include the wrong person in a message about a client, a deal, a product launch, or a sensitive HR issue.

WIRTW #752: the 'this is 40' edition

"Could the President decide that he wasn't going to appoint or allow to remain in office any heads of agencies over 40 years old?"

"I think that that would be within the President’s constitutional authority under the removal power."

That exchange took place earlier this week between Judge Karen Henderson, a Reagan appointee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur during proceedings over the termination of board members from two independent federal agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The claim that Trump has the constitutional authority to fire employees based on their age is appalling on its own. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects employees 40 and older, has plenty to say about that claim.

Even more disturbing, however, are the broader implications of the government's argument. Replace "over 40" with "Black," "female," "gay," "lesbian," "transgender," "Muslim," "Jewish," "disabled," or any other protected class. By McArthur's reasoning, those terminations would be just as lawful under Trump's "constitutional removal power." The government is arguing that Trump has the constitutional authority to remake the federal workforce into one only comprised of while, male, cisgender, under 40, non-disabled, Christians.

That argument isn't just legally dubious—it's a direct attack on the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination that underpin our society and our democracy. If accepted, it would open the door to a federal workforce shaped entirely by a President's personal biases, rather than merit, experience, or the law. The Constitution does not grant any President unchecked power to purge employees based on protected characteristics. This isn't about removal authority. It's about whether the rule of law still applies, even when the President finds it inconvenient to his agenda.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

EEOC issues guidance on "DEI-related discrimination," but doesn't bother to define it

What is "DEI-related discrimination at work?" No one knows, including the EEOC.

Late yesterday, the EEOC released two new policy documents aimed at eliminating "unlawful DEI" in the workplace: What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work and What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work (the latter even available as a poster-sized PDF).

The most revealing line appears in the opening sentence of the "What You Should Know" document: 

"Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a broad term that is not defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Of course it's undefined, because DEI is not illegal.

This is what a constitutional crisis looks like

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose." – Chief Justice John Roberts

Translation: If you don't like a court ruling, you appeal. You don't ignore it. You don't retaliate against the judge. And you don't call for their impeachment.

And yet… here we are.

This is what effective HR looks like

"It's my job to stand up and be the buffer between politicals and career employees, and I'm just trying to do my goddamn job. They have no idea who they picked a f—king fight with."

That's Traci DiMartini, the ousted head of human resources at the IRS, speaking out after she says she was fired for telling agency employees that DOGE had orchestrated their firings.

WIRTW #750: the 'rule of law' edition

This news should alarm any rational lawyer. Donald Trump has issued an Executive Order punishing Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.

The EO does the following:

• Directs federal agencies to identify and terminate, where legally permissible, contracts with Perkins Coie.
• Requires government contractors to disclose any business dealings with the firm.
• Mandates the suspension of any active security clearances held by individuals at Perkins Coie.
• Instructs the EEOC to review the diversity, equity, and inclusion practices of major law firms, including Perkins Coie, to ensure compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
• Limits official access to federal government buildings for Perkins Coie employees.
• Advises government employees to restrict official engagements with Perkins Coie or its attorneys.

"This is an absolute honor to sign," Trump said from the Oval Office. I call it a horror show.

In response, the firm says that the EO "is patently unlawful, and we intend to challenge it."

Lawyers and law firms should never fear persecution from the President of the United States for simply doing their jobs. The rule of law depends on attorneys being able to zealously represent their clients—whether they are Democrats, Republicans, corporations, or individuals—without political retribution. A functioning democracy requires an independent legal profession, free from government intimidation. If lawyers can be punished for representing disfavored clients, our entire justice system, our rule of law, and our very Constitution are all at risk.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

EEOC's policy shift to "protect American workers" is all about punishing non-Americans

If you hire non-Americans, the EEOC is coming after your business.

In a press release, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas says the following: 

"The EEOC is putting employers and other covered entities on notice: if you are part of the pipeline contributing to our immigration crisis or abusing our legal immigration system via illegal preferences against American workers, you must stop.… Many employers have policies and practices preferring illegal aliens, migrant workers, and visa holders or other legal immigrants over American workers—in direct violation of federal employment law prohibiting national origin discrimination."

Lucas's statement—while technically correct under Title VII—creates more problems than it solves. 

The attack on DEI does not mean employers must or should eliminate anti-harassment training

Even as some push back forcefully against DEI workplace initiatives, courts are pushing back even harder. Consider these excerpts from Diemert v. City of Seattle, in which a federal judge dismissed the claims of a white man who alleged that his employer's mandatory DEI training created a racially hostile work environment.

Protecting the rule of law

"Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." — Vice President JD Vance

We need to talk about the rule of law—because it's under serious attack.