DEI is not a get-out-of-summary-judgment-free card — but it can become evidence of discrimination

A white man gets fired. His employer has a DEI program. Therefore, the DEI program caused his termination.

That argument has become increasingly common in employment discrimination cases. It's also usually not enough.

But Chavers v. WestRock Services shows what happens when a plaintiff brings more than complaints about corporate diversity goals.

DOJ's attack on disparate impact gets Title VII exactly backwards

The Department of Justice just issued a legal opinion claiming that disparate impact liability is unconstitutional because it supposedly "incent[s] — and even coerce[s] — employers to make race-based decisions to avoid liability."

That's a remarkable claim.

It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of how disparate impact law actually works.

Disparate impact claims exist precisely because they target facially neutral policies. No one is alleging intentional discrimination. No one is claiming that an employer adopted a policy because of race, sex, or some other protected characteristic.

The entire point of disparate impact is that a neutral rule can nonetheless operate as an unnecessary barrier to employment opportunities.

🎶 With my mind on my Title VII and Title VII on my mind. 🎶

Barbie Bassett, a longtime white news anchor for WLBT, lost her job after two on-air comments her employer deemed racially offensive. First, she referred to a Black reporter's grandmother as "grand m*mmy." WLBT received viewer and employee complaints and gave Bassett a written warning.

Less than six months later, during an on-air segment about Snoop Dogg, Bassett dropped the phrase, "fo shizzle, my n**zle." A Black co-anchor immediately told her, "I can't believe you just said the N word on live TV."

Complaints followed, as did national media, and then Bassett's termination.

She sued, claiming race discrimination. Her argument was, basically, WLBT fired her because she was white, relying heavily on testimony from the station's general manager that "there are some things that Black people can say that White people can't say."

The EEOC just gave employers an (inadvertent) roadmap on how to legally implement a DEI program

The EEOC thinks it just filed a blockbuster anti-DEI lawsuit against The New York Times.

What it actually filed is a pretty good roadmap for how employers can pursue diversity lawfully.

That's the irony sitting at the center of the EEOC's new case against the Times. The agency claims the newspaper illegally passed over a white male editor for a deputy real estate editor position because the company wanted to increase the number of women and people of color in leadership.

The complaint is packed with the kinds of allegations you'd expect in 2026: Slack messages about diversity trends, references to "representation goals," DEI metrics in leadership reviews, and internal discussions about maintaining progress on newsroom diversity.

But if you actually read the complaint carefully — and not just the outrage-bait headlines — something else jumps off the page.

Most of what the EEOC describes is completely lawful.

The 11th Circuit just lowered the bar on racial harassment

A noose. A blackface doll. Hung at a Black employee's desk.

If you're thinking, "that's a textbook hostile work environment," congratulations—you have better instincts than the 11th Circuit.

In Nevins v. DCH Health Systems, the court acknowledged exactly what happened: an unknown employee hung a blackface doll by a noose in the plaintiff's workspace. The panel even called it what it is—"repugnant and racially hostile."

And then it shrugged.

Winning a lawsuit is not the proper measurement for the quality of your workplace

"Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but I'm keeping you."

That's what a Black legal assistant claims a law firm partner told her in a closed-door meeting.

The employee sued for a hostile work environment.

The employer won.

That's where the court case ends—but it's not where the employer lesson should.

Culture is what you tolerate

We tell ourselves a comforting lie about bad behavior around sports.

It's just passion.
Just rivalry.
Just trash talk.

Until it's racism.
Until it's misogyny.
Until it's culture.

Two recent soccer incidents make this point.

Federal court provides road map for lawful DEI programs

I keep getting asked how employers can legally maintain DEI programs in today's political climate. A federal judge just answered that question in a lawsuit the Missouri Attorney General brought against Starbucks—and in dismissing it, handed corporate America a roadmap.

The AG argued Starbucks' DEI policies were illegal because they "favored" BIPOC, women, and LGBTQ+ employees through mentorship, affinity groups, partnerships, and "quotas" tied to executive pay.

The court held that allegations without facts are just theories—and theories don't establish jurisdiction or liability.

Jury tags SHRM for $11.5 million in discrimination lawsuit

$11.5 million!

That's the number a jury needed to send a very loud, very clear message to the Society for Human Resource Management — the self-proclaimed standard-bearer of HR "best practices."

Last week's verdict against SHRM — $1.5 million in compensatory damages and a staggering $10 million in punitive damages — is not just a legal loss. It's an institutional indictment. When the organization that tells the rest of us how to run fair, lawful, ethical workplaces gets hit for racial discrimination and retaliation, the problem is bigger than one terminated instructional designer.

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.

A noose, a workplace, and a court that finally got it right

Imagine this. It's your employee's second day on the job. He climb into the cab of truck you've assigned him assigned to operate, and hanging from the rearview mirror is a noose.

That's what happened to Jhalil Croley, a Black heavy-equipment operator working for Frank Road Recycling. He was understandably terrified and reported the incident. He was later fired.

The trial court looked at those facts and somehow decided, as a matter of law, that a noose in your vehicle doesn't create a hostile work environment.

Thankfully, an Ohio appellate court had the legal sense (and humanity) to fix that mistake. It reversed summary judgment and correctly held that even a single incident of a noose directed at a Black employee can be severe enough to create a hostile work environment.

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.

Monkey see; monkey not do

Chalk one up to common-sense — the 6th Circuit just held that the word "monkey," when directed at a Black employee, constitutes a racially hostile work environment.

In Smith & Sneed v. P.A.M. Transport, the court reversed summary judgment for the employer and sent the case to trial.

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.

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.

Yes, segregation is still illegal, and also amoral

Image via wiki commons, cc license

I can't believe I have to say this in 2025, but here we are … it's illegal and amoral to have racially segregated facilities in your business.

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.

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:

What hiring and employment look like without DEI

What does a country without DEI look like? Some people say that's what they want. No more diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in hiring or the workplace. Just a pure "meritocracy."

So what does that actually look like?

Is Trump coming after Title VII next?

"Dad, did Trump just get rid of workplace discrimination laws?" That's the question my daughter asked me yesterday.

She was referring to his Executive Order entitled, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity.

To answer Norah's question, no, that EO did not get rid of workplace discrimination laws. Instead, it dismantled federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs and placed all federal DEI employees on unpaid leave. It also rescinded Executive Order 11246, originally signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, which prohibited federal contractors from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and further removing their affirmative action obligations in that regard.