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.

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.

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.

If you think women ruined the workplace, the problem isn’t women — it’s you

The New York Times recently asked, "Did Women Ruin the Workplace?" After an online firestorm erupted, it quietly changed the headline to "Did Radical Feminism Ruin the Workplace." That edit says everything. This isn't about law or fairness. It's about resentment dressed up in intellectual clothes.

Nothing about American workplace law is "feminized." It's statutory, constitutional, and precedent-driven—by courts, by the way, long dominated by men.

Title VII is neutral. Since 1964, it's banned discrimination because of sex. The Supreme Court has made sure those protections apply equally to everyone. Feminism didn't twist the law; the law simply requries equality.

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.

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.

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.

Avoid "mommy-track" stereotypes with your female employees

"If she returns…" That statement is among the allegations that Chloe Koprucki makes against her former employer, Broadridge Financial Solutions, in a just-filed sex discrimination and FMLA lawsuit. In sum, Koprucki claims that the company "mommy tracked" her after her return from maternity leave.

The "mommy track" refers to the unspoken career path many working mothers find themselves on, where they are passed over for promotions or opportunities because of assumptions about their priorities or commitment. High-profile lawsuits by women at companies like Ernst & Young, Jones Day, and others have brought attention to how this practice can create serious legal risks for employers.

"Why would you want to do a man's job?"

"Why would you want to do a man's job?" That's one of the sexist questions the EEOC alleges Waste Industries—a solid waste removal, recycling, and landfill service provider—repeatedly asked female job applicants.

As a result, the company agreed to pay $3.1 million to settle the agency’s pattern-or-practice sex discrimination claim.

Don't weigh your female employees

Local restaurant owner Bobby George — famous for allegedly not hiring Black people, breaking Covid safety rules, and instituting a "Last Supper" boycott of the Olympics in his restaurants — has been charged with nine counts of rape, attempted murder, and kidnapping. The allegations are horrific, and if convicted he'll likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

In reading about his criminal case, something about how he allegedly runs his restaurants caught my attention. Allegedly, he weighs females as a condition of employment and won't hire any who don't fit his "look" — skinny and able to fit into an extra-small t-shirt.

"Do as I say, not as I do" — HR leader fired for harassment loses discrimination lawsuit

A female HR supervisor attends an out-of-town leadership retreat with some co-workers. They observe her at the hotel bar telling off-color jokes, directing repeated profanity at employees who refused to drink alcohol, and toasting a slur for the female anatomy.

Several complain to her boss about the inappropriate behavior. The company investigates and ultimately fires her for violating its harassment policy.

The HR supervisor then sues for sex discrimination, claiming that the company did not fire a male employee who engaged in similar misconduct. Specifically, she claims that he had once asked her "if the carpet matched the drapes" (which she advised the company during its investigation).

"Why would you want a man's job?" = big job interview no-no, says EEOC in lawsuit

"Why would you want a man's job?" Why do you want to take a job away from a man?"

Those interview questions are at the center of a lawsuit the EEOC filed against Waste Industries, a solid waste removal, recycling pickup, and landfill operation business.

It's illegal to deny coverage for gender-affirming care to a transgender employee simply because the employee is transgender

Can an employer-sponsored health plan legally deny coverage for gender-affirming care to a transgender employee simply because the employee is transgender?

According to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Lange v. Houston Cty., the answer is an unequivocal "No, it cannot!"

“DEI” is not a 4-letter word

"DEI" is not a 4-letter word … no matter what some people want you to believe.

Companies such as Sherwin-Williams are scrapping their internal use of the words "Diversity," "Equity," and "Inclusion," and are replacing them with words such as "Belonging" and "Culture."

Ending gender bias in dress codes

During the recent Super Bowl halftime show, Usher took off his shirt and everyone oohed and aahed over his performance. Twenty years ago, Janet Jackson's breast was accidentally exposed during her halftime performance and the world stopped to nearly ruin her career over a wardrobe malfunction.

We need to have a serious conversation about sex-based stereotypes, double standards, and workplace dress code.

Here are 7 tips to draft a non-discriminatory, gender-neutral dress code for your workplace:

A DEI smackdown

It's a DEI heavyweight battle of epic proportions that played out of X over the past week.

In the blue corner, hailing from Big D, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and serial entrepreneur Mark Cuban: 

I've never hired anyone based exclusively on race, gender, religion. I only ever hire the person that will put my business in the best position to succeed. And yes, race and gender can be part of the equation. I view diversity as a competitive advantage.

And in the red corner, hailing from our nation's capital, EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas: 

Unfortunately you’re dead wrong on black-letter Title VII law. As a general rule, race/sex can't even be a "motivating factor" — nor a plus factor, tie-breaker, or tipping point.… This isn't an opinion; reasonable minds can't disagree on this point. It's the plain text of Title VII.

It’s illegal for gay people to discriminate against straight people … just not on these facts in this case

There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination, whether the victim is, for example, Black or white, female or male, gay or straight. When the employee claiming discrimination is in the majority, however, in the 6th Circuit they must not only show disparate treatment, but also must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

Which brings us to the story of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services for sex discrimination under Title VII claiming that her lesbian supervisor discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation. Ames claimed that OHYS passed her over for a promotion, demoted her, and promoted a gay man to her former position.