FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    Department of Education Opens Title VI Investigation into George Mason University (Jul. 10, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education has announced a Title VI investigation into George Mason University after multiple professors at the University filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) alleging that the University illegally used race-based hiring and promotion practices from 2020 through the present. The complaint alleged that the University created a racially hostile environment in violation of Title VI by way of several policies and practices that constituted racial discrimination, including the University’s DEI policies, the presence of “Equity Advisors,” the use of race-conscious promotion criteria, and the creation of diversity hiring directives. Additionally, the complaint makes note of a campus-wide email sent by the University president in March 2025 announcing the renaming of the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” office and stating that no University policy changes were needed to comply with civil rights laws.  

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | External Investigations | Faculty & Staff | Investigations | Race and National Origin Discrimination

  • Date:

    Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Jun. 5, 2025)

    Vacatur and Remand. Plaintiff, a straight, white woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004 filed a Title VII claim against her employer alleging she was denied a management promotion, and demoted because of her sexual orientation. Plaintiff interviewed for a new management position in 2019, but her employer hired another candidate who was lesbian. Plaintiff was later demoted from her role, and her employer then filled that role with a gay man. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed that decision. The two courts reviewed plaintiff’s claim under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting framework and concluded that plaintiff failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Both lower courts reasoned that because plaintiff is a straight, white woman, she was required to make the showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing the prima-facie case.” While the Sixth Circuit “background circumstances” rule required plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden during the first step of the application of the framework, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not change based on whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. The Court wrote that the so-called “background circumstances” rule ignored its instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the prima facie standard. In its unanimous decision, the Court resolved the prior circuit split regarding the correct evidentiary standard to apply to majority-group plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, the Court’s decision aligns the standard to be applied to all plaintiffs, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for application of the proper standard. 

    Topics:

    Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Donald Trump (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025)

    Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for a Stay of the Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland sought preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants from enforcing Executive Orders 14151 “Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferences” and 14173 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” and a declaration that the two Executive Orders are unlawful and unconstitutional. On February 21, 2025, the district court granted a preliminary injunction. Defendants then sought to stay the injunction pending an interlocutory appeal, which the lower court denied. However, the Fourth Circuit determined that Defendants satisfied the factors for a stay under Nken v. Holder, agreed with Defendants’ view that the two Executive Orders are of “distinctly limited scope. . . [and] do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity, or inclusion, and they should not be so understood,” and also found that the challenged provisions do not on their face, violate the First or Fifth Amendments. Concurring opinions further critiqued the scope of the underlying preliminary injunction, which enjoined nondefendants from taking action against nonplaintiffs.  

    Topics:

    Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education (D.N.H. Mar. 3, 2025)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the National Education Association and the National Education Association–New Hampshire, challenge the Dear Colleague Letter (Feb. 14, 2025) (DCL) and request that the Court declare that the DCL violates the First and Fifth Amendments; that it is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, contrary to constitutional right, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, and without observance of procedure required by law; hold it to be unlawful, vacate, and set aside the “End DEI” portal and the FAQ; and restrain the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) from enforcing the DCL. Plaintiffs allege that the DCL radically resets the Department’s longstanding positions on civil rights laws, which guarantee equality and inclusion and impermissibly infringes on the authority of states and school districts over public education, as well as the First Amendment rights of educators and students. Due to the DCL’s allegedly vague and viewpoint-discriminatory prohibitions, Plaintiffs further contend that “the [DCL’s] fundamental contradiction of Title VI in prohibiting equity and inclusion programs, its violations of due process in failing to set clear standards and in opening educators to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, as well as its chill to First Amendment protected speech and expression could not stand no matter the process followed.” Plaintiffs also allege that the open-ended and subjective nature of the DCL’s prohibitions allow for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the uncertainty in what educators can teach, how they can teach, and what educational programs may or may not operate moving forward has an immediate impact on their ability to do their jobs and as such, causes substantial and irreparable harm.

    Topics:

    Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    Nat’l Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. v. Trump, et al. (D. Md. Mar. 3, 2025)

    Order denying Motion to Stay Injunction Pending Appeal. Plaintiffs, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland sought preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining defendants from enforcing Executive Orders 14151, “Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferences” (J20) and 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (J21) and a declaration that the Orders are unlawful and unconstitutional. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants Donald J. Trump; the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, and Justice; the National Science Foundation; and the Office of Management and Budget violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, as well as Separation of Powers and that both Orders are (1) unreasonably vague as they fail to define the key terms “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (“DEI”), “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility” (“DEIA”), “environmental justice,” “equity-related,” and “illegal discrimination or preferences,” and (2) suppress free speech on DEI and DEIA principles. Plaintiffs further alleged that the J21 Order is designed to chill free speech on matters of substantial political importance, and the lack of clear definitions leave plaintiffs as potential targets with no guidance as to what speech or which actions the Order includes. The preliminary injunction prohibits defendants other than the President from: (1) pausing, freezing, impeding, blocking, cancelling, or terminating any awards, contracts or obligations (“Current Obligations”); (2) “changing the terms of any Current Obligation, on the basis of the Termination Provision; (3) “requir[ing] any grantee or contractor to make any ‘certification’ or other representation pursuant to the Certification Provision;” or (4) “bring[ing] any False Claims Act enforcement action, or other enforcement action, pursuant to the Enforcement Threat Provision, including but not limited to any False Claims Act enforcement action premised on any certification made pursuant to the Certification Provision.” On February 21, 2025, the court granted a preliminary injunction. Defendants then sought to stay the injunction pending an interlocutory appeal, which the court denied.  

    Topics:

    Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Donald J. Trump (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2025)

    Order and Opinion granting in part Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland seek preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining defendants from enforcing Executive Orders 14151, “Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferences” (J20) and 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (J21) and a declaration that the Orders are unlawful and unconstitutional. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants Donald J. Trump; the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, and Justice; the National Science Foundation; and the Office of Management and Budget violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, as well as Separation of Powers and that both Orders are (1) unreasonably vague as they fail to define the key terms “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (“DEI”), “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility” (“DEIA”), “environmental justice,” “equity-related,” and “illegal discrimination or preferences,” and (2) suppress free speech on DEI and DEIA principles. Plaintiffs further alleged that the J21 Order is designed to chill free speech on matters of substantial political importance, and the lack of clear definitions leave plaintiffs as potential targets with no guidance as to what speech or which actions the Order includes. The preliminary injunction prohibits defendants other than the President from: (1) pausing, freezing, impeding, blocking, cancelling, or terminating any awards, contracts or obligations (“Current Obligations”); (2) “changing the terms of any Current Obligation, on the basis of the Termination Provision; (3) requir[ing] any grantee or contractor to make any ‘certification’ or other representation pursuant to the Certification Provision;” or (4) “bring[ing] any False Claims Act enforcement action, or other enforcement action, pursuant to the Enforcement Threat Provision, including but not limited to any False Claims Act enforcement action premised on any certification made pursuant to the Certification Provision.” 

    Topics:

    Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    Open Letter to General Counsel of Colleges and Universities re the U.S. Dep’t of Education, Office for Civil Rights’ Feb. 14 Dear Colleague Letter titled “DEI Programs Are Lawful Under Federal Civil Rights Laws and Supreme Court Precedent” (Feb. 20, 2025)

    Memorandum from postsecondary legal professors and scholars. The Memo, which is authored by an ad hoc consortium of two dozen academics from various law schools, is styled as an open letter to college and university leadership, in particular offices of general counsel, and analyzes Executive Order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” and the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights’ February 14 Dear Colleague Letter. Relying in part on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) and the denial of cert in TJ v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 218 L. Ed. 2d 71 (U.S. 2024), the Memo concludes that “DEI initiatives that do not employ racial classifications or otherwise limit opportunity to individuals from certain racial groups remain legally secure,” and sets forth 13 examples of campus initiatives directed at “undo[ing] the effects of past discrimination” that “do not ‘involve classification by race.’”  

    Topics:

    Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | Governance | Government Relations & Community Affairs

  • Date:

    U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter on Title VI Compliance (Feb. 14, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights Dear Colleague Letter re: Title VI Compliance. The Letter is issued to clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (the Department). The letter states that pursuant to the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) decision “nebulous concepts like racial balancing and diversity are not compelling interests.” It further states that federal law prohibits covered entities from using race in decision pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life. The Letter critiques other methods of potential race-based decision making such as utilizing students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other means to determine or predict a student’s race and to favor or disfavor such students. The Letter states that additional legal guidance will follow in due course and the Department intends to take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations consistent with the Letter beginning not later than 14 days from its issuance, including anti-discrimination requirements that are a condition of receiving federal funds. It concludes by stating that all educational institutions are advised to: (1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited use of race. 

    Topics:

    Admissions | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Race and National Origin Discrimination | Students

  • Date:

    National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Donald J. Trump (D. Md. Feb. 3, 2025)

    Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Maryland seek a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants from enforcing Executive Orders 14151(“Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferences”) (J20) and 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”) (J21) and enter a declaratory judgment that the Orders are unlawful and unconstitutional. Plaintiffs allege that defendants Donald J. Trump; the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, and Justice; the National Science Foundation; and the Office of Management and Budget have violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, as well as Separation of Powers in their enforcement of J20 and J21. Plaintiffs contend that both Orders are unreasonably vague as they fail to define the key terms Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”), Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (“DEIA”), “environmental justice,” “equity-related,” and “illegal discrimination or preferences” and ultimately seek to suppress free speech on DEI or DEIA principles. Plaintiffs further allege that the J21 Order is designed to chill free speech on matters of substantial political importance, and the lack of clear definitions leave plaintiffs as potential targets with no guidance as to what speech or which actions the Order encompasses. Specifically, plaintiffs write in relation to the ambiguity of the Order’s language targeted toward institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion: “none of the approximately 120 institutions of higher education that could be subject to civil compliance investigation know what, if any, action they can take to avoid being named on the Attorney General’s target list.” Plaintiffs contend the only sure way to avoid unwarranted harm is to censor their own speech. Finally, plaintiffs argue that the President cannot seize Congress’s power of the purse and deny due process to millions of Americans by attempting to dictate government spending by placing conditions on the spending power otherwise vested in the legislative branch. 

    Topics:

    Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff

  • Date:

    Office of the Attorney General Memorandum on “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences” (Feb. 5, 2025)

    U.S. Office of the Attorney General issued a Memorandum to all employees titled, “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences.” The Memorandum announced that in accordance with Executive Order 14173: “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division (the Department) will investigate, eliminate, and penalize what it couches as “illegal” Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) “preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.” The Memorandum notes that by March 1, 2025, the Department as well as the Office of Legal Policy will jointly submit a report to the Associate Attorney General with recommendations for enforcing federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to “end illegal discrimination and preferences, including policies relating to DEI and DEIA.” The Memorandum concludes with guidance to institutions receiving federal funds, stating that the Department will work with the U.S. Department of Education to issue further direction. 

    Topics:

    Diversity in Employment | Faculty & Staff