"Regardless, its strict framing of equal-protection principles has encouraged greater scrutiny of private-sector DEI programs. Lawsuits frequently challenge internships, fellowships, leadership pipelines, and other opportunities that restrict eligibility by race or sex, arguing that such limitations constitute disparate treatment regardless of the employer's good-faith motives. Constitutional challenges are also emerging against federal programs that consider race, exposing employers who receive federal funding to heightened risk."
"Yet, the ruling leaves intact the core obligations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and, for federal contractors, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs requirements. The result is a more politically charged and litigious environment in addition to the existing compliance duties. Emerging risk areas The highest risk arises in programs that expressly reserve opportunities for particular demographic groups."
Employers face increased legal scrutiny over race- and sex-based DEI programs after the Supreme Court's Students for Fair Admissions decision, which influenced employment litigation and policy debates. Longstanding obligations under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and federal contractor OFCCP requirements remain effective, but the legal basis for programs that explicitly limit eligibility by race or sex has weakened. Lawsuits now frequently target internships, fellowships, leadership pipelines, and similar initiatives as disparate treatment claims. Constitutional challenges against federal race-conscious programs raise additional risks for organizations receiving federal funds. As a result, DEI practice focuses on designing initiatives that pursue diversity goals while reducing exposure to discrimination claims.
Read at www.amny.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]