The most puzzling HR litigation strategy you’ll read this week

Every so often a litigation strategy comes along that just makes you stare at the screen, shake your head, and think, "Did a lawyer really decide this was the best idea, and how much did they bill for it?"

SHRM — the world's largest human resources trade group and an organization that literally brands itself as THE authority on HR — asked a federal court to prohibit a plaintiff from referring to it as an expert in human resources.

Yes, you read that right. SHRM didn't want a jury to hear that … SHRM is an expert in human resources.

Civil-rights enforcement isn't a culture-war trophy

The Wall Street Journal just profiled EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas under the headline "Trump's DEI Slayer Is Just Getting Started." On LinkedIn, Lucas replied, "thanks … that's right! Buckle up for more…"

It's… an odd flex.

Title VII protects everyone. Always has. White employees, men, Christians, and cisgender individuals are covered just the same as workers from traditionally marginized communities. Discrimination is discrimination, whoever the victim is.

But equal protection doesn't mean equal priority. And it doesn't mean the EEOC should treat anti-Christian bias, anti-American bias, or corporate DEI programs as the nation's most urgent civil-rights threats.

Employers, you don't need to be right—you just need to be honest

If you're an employer disciplining or terminating an employee for workplace misconduct, you don't have to prove the employee did the bad thing—you just need to honestly believe they did.

In Welch v. Heart Truss & Engineering, the employer fired an employee it believed had spray-painted trusses with graffiti—including devil horns and cartoon boobs. (Yes, really.) The employee claimed the real reason for his firing was his disability and workers' comp history.

But the 6th Circuit didn't buy it. The employer's "honest belief" saved the day.

Let's count the ways Pete Hegseth's speech would get your company sued

If Pete Hegseth were your CEO, I'd be drafting your EEOC position statement tomorrow.

You're not running the Department of War (née Defense), and your employees aren't soldiers. If you think, however, Hegseth's speech yesterday is a model for shaping culture in your workplace, here's a lawyer's caution: his words are an employment-law nightmare.

Documentation + Process + Conduct = the three things you need to best bulletproof your termination decisions

How do you fireproof your workplace decisions from discrimination lawsuits? By doing exactly what Kent State University just did.

A transgender professor sued after being denied a leadership role and campus transfer, claiming sex discrimination. On appeal, the 6th Circuit affirmed the summary dismissal of the case, because the employer had its ducks in a row.

Here's what happened, and why the university won.

'Come on you Gunners!' as pretext for discrimination?

My family are Gooners. For the uninitiated, that means we're Arsenal Football Club supporters. My 17-year-old son is the most passionate of the lot.

On a recent layover in an airport lounge, Donovan was wearing his Arsenal kit when a man walked by, pointed at the crest, and with a British accent said: "Oy, you got some dirt on your chest."

It took Donovan a minute to process. And then, barely missing a beat, he got up, walked over to the man, and asked, "Are you a Spurs fan?" ("Spurs," short for Tottenham Hotspur, Arsenal's North London neighbor and most despised rival.)

The man replied, "I am."

To which Donovan, at the top of his lungs, yelled: "PISS OFF!"

Then he turned and walked back to our table, leaving the man chuckling with his family.

SCOTUS just green-lit racial profiling. This is bad. Really, really bad.

The Supreme Court just gave ICE the constitutional thumbs-up to profile people based on race, national origin, language, job, or where they happen to be.

A lower court had blocked ICE from detaining people by relying on appearance, accent, or occupation as a proxy for immigration status. On appeal, the Supreme Court, through a shadow-docket order, lifted that injunction. In plain English, ICE can once again use these factors to decide whom to stop, question, and detain.

Waxing philosophical: workplace speech vs. anti-discrimination law

Federal anti-discrimination laws protect people, not the content of their speech. Amy Wax, a Penn law professor (who, frankly, should have known better) just learned this lesson the hard way.

The law school disciplined her for what the it labeled "flagrant unprofessional conduct" stemming from a string of statements she made—some in the classroom, others in media—that denigrated racial minorities and others, including:

• Insinuating that Black people are inherently inferior to whites.
• Asserting the U.S. would be "better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites."
• Telling a Black colleague it's "rational to be afraid of Black men in elevators."
• Dismissing interracial marriage as misguiding advertising.
• Commenting on a podcast that Black women are "single moms with a bunch of guys who float in and out."
• Saying same-sex relationships are selfish and not about community or family.
• Claiming the country is better off with "fewer Asians" and describing them as resentful and envious of Western achievements.

Wax sued, claiming that punishing her for years of inappropriate racist, sexist, and homophobic statements was discrimination against her as a White Jewish woman.

Defending the "kitchen sink" discrimination lawsuit

Arnett Moore, a 51-year-old Baptist Black man, worked as a Division Manager for Avon. When Avon restructured, the company compared the performance of division managers in the region. Moore's numbers came in last. The decision-makers documented the process, applied objective sales data, and had multiple levels of approval. As a result, Avon fired Moore.

Moore then sued. First, he said Avon discriminated against him because of his disability or perceived disability Then he added sex. Then age. Then, race. And even religion. In the end, his complaint alleged six different forms of discrimination.

Title VII requires harm; not just hate

This week, America First Legal, a right-wing conservative organization founded by Stephen Miller, fired off a letter to the EEOC accusing the Los Angeles Dodgers and Guggenheim Partners of violating Title VII because of their publicly commitment to workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion.

But there's the legal twist: AFL didn't name a single person who was denied a job, demoted, fired, or otherwise harmed. Nor did it claim any injury to itself. 

FIFA gets a red card for its missing anti-discrimination stance

FIFA says it has a zero-tolerance policy against racism and discrimination.

But during this year's inaugural Club World Cup—in the United States of all places—that commitment has gone missing. No "No Racism" signage. No "No Discrimination" videos. No announcements. No armbands. No social media messaging. Just silence. (And a Dance Cam encouraging people to "Be Active.")

Compare that to past FIFA tournaments, where anti-racism and inclusion messages were projected on jumbotrons, splashed across LED boards, and worn on armbands—from "Unite for Gender Equality" to "Unite for Inclusion." Now? Nothing.

FIFA hasn't explained why. But the silence speaks volumes.

Do you know the difference between legal and illegal interview questions?

You're hiring. Great.
You're asking illegal interview questions. Not so great.

Most employers don't mean to cross the line in interviews. But intent doesn't matter when the EEOC or a process server comes knocking. The law draws a pretty clear line around certain topics. And the moment you ask the wrong question, you've handed a candidate "Exhibit A" in their future discrimination claim.

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.

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.

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?

Damage caps for discrimination claims don't work

$75,000. That’s what Morton Salt just paid to settle a lawsuit brought by the EEOC.

The agency alleged that Morton Salt discriminated against a Black employee because of his race and disability—and then retaliated against him for reporting it.

The allegations are disturbing:

• A white coworker allegedly used the n-word repeatedly, including calling employees "worthless [n-words]"—something Morton knew about.

• A Black employee reported the racist behavior.

• Instead of addressing or investigating the harassment, Morton reprimanded and ultimately fired the person who spoke up.

And what did it cost them? Seventy-five grand.

Documentation wins cases

Charles Carroll worked as a high-ranking exec at IDEMIA, the company behind TSA PreCheck. He ran a new initiative called "Trusted Fan" and was involved in renewing a major TSA contract.

He was also in his 60s and had recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

A year after disclosing his diagnosis, and after delivering the TSA contract renewal, he was fired. The company said it was due to performance issues: lack of leadership, mishandling the Trusted Fan rollout, and frustrations around the contract renewal process.  

The Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment for the employer across the board, including on Carroll's disability and age discrimination. Why? One word: documentation.

Will SCOTUS heighten the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in "reverse discrimination" cases?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who sued the Department of Youth Services for sex discrimination under Title VII. She alleged that she was passed over for a promotion, then demoted, and that a gay man was subsequently promoted into her former position—all due to her sexual orientation (straight).

Ames claimed sex discrimination, but the 6th Circuit disagreed, ruling that she failed to establish the "'background circumstances' to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

What are these "background circumstances"? According to the 6th Circuit, plaintiffs typically prove this with evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay individuals) made the employment decision at issue or with statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against the majority group. Ames lost because she provided neither.

And that's the issue SCOTUS will decide—does "discrimination" under Title VII mean discrimination regardless of majority or minority status, or does it take on a different meaning when the claim comes from a member of the majority class? Does a member of the majority class have to show something "more" to establish discrimination.

How to respond to the Justice Department's DEI hitlist

"The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division will investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector." 

 

That's the key sentence from a Feb. 5, 2025, memo that Attorney General Pam Bondi sent to all DOJ employees.

What does it mean? No one really knows. What we do know is that diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are top priorities for this administration. The key question is how the administration defines "illegal."

Here's what we can infer so far:

An expensive lesson on pay-equity compliance

Mastercard has agreed to pay $26 million to settle allegations that it systematically underpaid thousands of female, Black, and Hispanic employees. The settlement resolves claims that the company underpaid 7,500 female, Black, and Hispanic workers compared to their male and white counterparts for performing the same or similar work.

As this case illustrates, allegations of systemic pay discrimination hit hard—financially and reputationally. As an employer, you can and should take steps to ensure fair pay practices. Not only because it's the right thing to do, but because it's critical to avoid costly lawsuits and foster a workplace of trust and respect.