In our prior post, we reported that on February 21, 2025, a Maryland federal judge had issued a nationwide preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the key provisions of President Trump’s DEI-related Executive Orders (EOs). That judge later refused to stay the preliminary injunction, despite the Trump administration’s request, and clarified that the preliminary injunction applied to all federal agencies, not only those named as defendants in the lawsuit.Continue Reading UPDATE: Fourth Circuit reinstates DEI executive orders pending appeal
Court clarifies that DEI executive orders are temporarily blocked for all federal agencies
In the early days of his second term, President Trump issued a series of executive orders (EO) that were aimed at reshaping the landscape of both federal and private sector policies. Two specifically targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives:
- EO 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” directs the termination of all DEI-related mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities within federal agencies. It further calls for the termination of “equity-related” grants or contracts and requires agencies to report all employees in DEI positions to the Office of Management and Budget.
- EO 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” impacts the private sector, directing the attorney general to develop a strategic enforcement plan, identifying key private entities for civil rights investigations, recommending regulatory actions, and proposing potential litigation to curb DEI practices deemed discriminatory under the Trump administration’s interpretation of federal law. It also requires federal contractors and grant recipients to eliminate DEI programs that involve race- or sex-based preferences and certify that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws as a condition of receiving government funding.
Analyzing President Trump’s executive orders on DEI: Implications and reactions
In only his first week in office, Trump has already dismantled DEI programs within the government, revoked a 60-year old order requiring federal contractors to develop affirmative action programs, and signaled to private-sector employers that their DEI programs are next. Continue Reading Analyzing President Trump’s executive orders on DEI: Implications and reactions
Federal judge requires state of Texas to file new lawsuit to challenge recent EEOC guidance on gender identity discrimination
In July of this year, a Texas federal district court judge denied the state of Texas’ request to vacate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) most recent guidance relating to gender identity discrimination. In doing so, the federal court held that the state could not bring the challenge in a previously filed lawsuit regarding prior EEOC guidance but, instead, must file a new lawsuit.
The state of Texas first took issue with the EEOC’s 2021 guidance, which required bathroom, dress code, and pronoun accommodations for employees based on gender identity. Texas filed suit against the EEOC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, requesting the court vacate the 2021 guidance (2021 Lawsuit). On October 1, 2022, the court vacated the 2021 guidance and issued a declaratory judgment that the guidance was unlawful on several grounds, holding that it: (1) was contrary to law because Title VII, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, does not require employers to provide accommodations regarding bathrooms, dress codes, or pronoun usage based on gender identity; and (2) unlawfully extended Bostock’s “non-discrimination holding” beyond statutory limits imposed by Congress. The EEOC did not appeal the district court’s judgment.Continue Reading Federal judge requires state of Texas to file new lawsuit to challenge recent EEOC guidance on gender identity discrimination
Texas judge vacates NLRB’s new joint employer rule
In October 2023, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule that lowered the standard for companies to qualify as joint employers. You can read more about the rule here.
On March 8, 2024, a federal judge in Texas struck down the final rule. U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker granted summary judgment in favor of the business coalition that challenged the 2023 rule. In short, the 2023 rule established a two-step test which requires: (1) the entity qualify as a common-law employer of the workers in question, and if so (2) the entity have control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment. The court agreed with the business coalition’s contention that “the second test is always met if the first test is met, so the rule’s joint employer inquiry has just one step for all practical purposes.” The court found that “if an entity exercises or has the power to exercise control (even indirect control) over at least one essential term, the entity is an employer, jointly with workers’ undisputed employer.” And because such a result “would treat virtually every entity that contracts for labor as a joint employer,” the Board’s 2023 final rule “exceeds the bounds of the common law and is thus contrary to law.”Continue Reading Texas judge vacates NLRB’s new joint employer rule
Dueling challenges to NLRB’s new joint employer rule succeed in extending effective date of rule
On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule that dramatically lowered the standard for companies to qualify as joint employers. You can read more about the rule here. In short, the new rule provides that even reserved, unexercised, or indirect control, such as through an intermediary, over one or more of the rule’s seven enumerated terms or conditions of employment is sufficient to establish joint employment. There is no doubt that implementation of the new rule will drastically expand when companies will be considered joint employers and create additional costs and obstacles for employers.Continue Reading Dueling challenges to NLRB’s new joint employer rule succeed in extending effective date of rule
Fifth Circuit invalidates decades-old precedent requiring an “ultimate employment decision” for disparate-treatment claims under Title VII
On August 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc in Hamilton v. Dallas County unwound its long-held limitation that an adverse employment action must be an “ultimate employment decision” to be actionable under Title VII. The majority reasoned that this limitation was incongruent with the broad language of Section 703(a)(1), which states that “[i]t
NLRB tightens scrutiny of workplace rules in Stericycle, Inc. decision
On August 2, the National Labor Relations Board issued the Stericycle, Inc. decision, in which it reinstated a modified version of the Board’s pro-employee Lutheran-Heritage standard for scrutinizing employer workplace rules. Under this new standard, a rule or policy is “presumptively unlawful” if it tends to chill employees from engaging in protected conduct under Section
FAQs regarding the NLRB’s ban on confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in severance agreements
On February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board issued a landmark decision in McLaren Macomb that has the potential to seismically change how employers approach and manage employee separations that include severance packages. In response to this landmark decision and the impact it will have on many employers, Reed Smith’s Labor & Employment team
NLRB makes it easier for unions to organize micro-units
Among a flurry of recent pro-union decisions, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) issued a decision on December 14, 2022 restoring an Obama-Era test for determining the appropriateness of a bargaining unit in representation proceedings. This recent decision is expected to give unions more power in determining the makeup of bargaining units and enable smaller