On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released joint “technical assistance documents” (i.e., non-binding interpretive guidelines for enforcement agents) which identify specific diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) practices that those agencies may consider “illegal” and “discriminatory.” 

On January 23, 2025, a coalition of Attorneys General from ten states, led by AG Ken Paxton of Texas, penned a letter to six major U.S. financial institutions, warning that their embrace of “race-and-sex-based quotas” and investment decisions made “in the furtherance of political agendas” might run violate of federal and state laws. AG Paxton invited these firms to answer a series of questions regarding their policies, but nevertheless reserved the right to take “enforcement actions to vindicate federal or State laws.” This letter comes on the heels of President Trump’s recent executive orders including one entitled, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”, which we wrote about previously here. What does the letter say, and what, if anything, should other companies do in response? We explore these questions and offer some guidance about them below.

President Trump has issued a flurry of wide-ranging executive orders intended to shake up the employment landscape.  One of those orders, entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Executive Order”), takes aim at non-compliant DEI programs and policies.  It also creates a momentous change in the federal contractor landscape by revoking Executive Order 11246, which has, for the past sixty years, served as the foundation for non-discrimination and affirmative action requirements in the federal contracting space.  Although the Executive Order’s mandates are vague in many places and raise more questions than they answer, at bottom, the Executive Order appears designed to attempt to effectively stamp out DEI programs and policies in the federal workforce, while putting private sector employers on notice and pushing them to proactively modify, narrow or even end their DEI initiatives.  But as we’ll discuss more below, these developments do not compel private employers to rescind their DEI programs and policies entirely; instead, employers should use the Executive Order as an opportunity to review their existing programs and policies to ensure that they (i) continue to align with their mission and organizational goals, (ii) are legally compliant in light of the change in administration, and (iii) whether subsequently modified or not, thereafter are effectively communicated to stakeholders. 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted cert in a hotly contested case addressing the standards of proof applicable to reverse discrimination claims under Title VII.  The case comes on the heels of the court’s decision last term in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., where it lowered the standard to prove that an employee suffered an adverse employment action (now, employees need only show that they suffered “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment”).  In the next term, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, SCOTUS will turn its attention to so-called “reverse” discrimination and whether members of a majority group will be required to meet a heightened pleading standard to prove their claims.

It’s that time of year again—California employers need to prepare for a raft of new laws that become effective in the new year.  Below is a brief overview of some of those laws and how employers should prepare for them.  All of the laws discussed below become effective on January 1, 2025. 

Political conflicts in the workplace will only grow as we near election day, and this means human resources professionals and in house counsel need to hone their conflict resolution skills.  Resolving political conflict in the workplace is a bit more nuanced than resolving ordinary workplace slights, requiring legally compliant de-escalation. We thought a few guidelines – tested against some real-life scenarios – would be a useful campaign stop for those charged with managing these issues.  Here’s a teaser: you learn a company supervisor has just invited the supervisor’s entire team to a weekend rally for [insert any candidate’s name here].  What if anything do you do that doesn’t place you (and the company) squarely within the bullseye of our sharply divided political environment?  

Major changes to PAGA are now official. Most importantly:

• Employees must have experienced each of the alleged violations to have standing to sue;
• Employers can correct inaccuracies on paystubs without penalty; and 
• Employers who take specific steps to prevent Labor Code violations will be able to substantially reduce liability. 

On June 18, 2024, Governor Newsom, in collaboration with legislative leaders, unveiled a landmark agreement to reform the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). 

A gentle reminder for California employers: the clock is ticking on your obligations to prepare a workplace violence prevention plan and conduct a training session on that plan under California’s new violence prevention plan law (SB 553).