EEOC Says Supreme Court's College Admissions Diversity Ruling Does Not Impact Private Employer Diversity Initiatives
ABSTRACT: Vice Chair Jocelyn Samuels of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently spoke at the American Bar Association conference on Equal Employment Opportunity law, reiterating her stance that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision that race-based university admissions policies are unconstitutional does not apply to the “vast majority” of private employers’ diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. But various state attorneys general and legislators do not share that view, and the issue is far from resolved.
During a panel discussion at a recent American Bar Association Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity the Vice Chair took the position that the Supreme Court’s June 2023 decision that race-based university admission policies are unconstitutional does not apply to the “vast majority” of private employers’ diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
The Vice Chair’s comments pertain to the recent United States Supreme Court decision (“SFFA decision”) in a pair of cases – Students for Fair Admission v. President & Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina – where the high court struck down the affirmative action admission policies at those universities, finding they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Ever since that decision, there has been much speculation and discussion as to whether the employment practices of private businesses that focus on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives would face a similar fate if challenged. Threats, legislation, and lawsuits opposing those initiatives have followed across the nation. In her comments, Vice Chair Samuels cautioned employers against abandoning the DEI programs geared towards diversifying applicant pools and promoting equal employment opportunities in the workplace.
Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard/UNC and the Aftermath
In a 6-3 split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled the colleges’ affirmative action policies that explicitly use race as a factor for admissions are unconstitutional and fail strict scrutiny.
While the SFFA decision does not mention or address employer’s DEI initiatives, Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion may have opened the door. In his concurrence, while analyzing the issue before the Court under Title VI, Justice Gorsuch directly quoted language from Title VII, noting Congress made it unlawful for employers to discriminate against any individual because of that individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Following the Supreme Court decision, on July 13, 2023, Attorneys General from thirteen different states jointly sent letters to Fortune 100 companies to remind them of their obligations as an employer to refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of DEI or otherwise and threatening legal consequences for the continuation of such programs.
Shortly thereafter, on July 17, 2023, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton sent letters to over 50 law firms, threatening investigation and litigation over DEI initiatives that include race-based hiring quotas and benchmarks asserting his belief that the Supreme Court’s decision extends to private employers.
Democratic Attorneys General responded to the July 13th letter, reassuring companies that corporate DEI efforts are legal and asserting their position that the Supreme Court decision has no bearing on private employer hiring practices.
Additionally, in the wake of SFFA, ten states have enacted anti-DEI legislation, while another fourteen have proposed anti-DEI legislation.
EEOC’s Reaction to the Aftermath So Far
Addressing the strong and widely disparate reactions to the Supreme Court ruling, Vice Chair Samuels expressed her view that the discussions surrounding the expansion of the SFFA decision to employment programs are overblown, noting there is nothing about the SFFA decision that applies to the vast majority of DEI programs. Samuels highlighted that one of the EEOC’s stated priorities is to support employers in evaluating their DEI initiatives to make sure they are lawful. She also advised the EEOC has various resources available for employers that are aimed at identifying the types of DEI-initiatives the agency thinks remain lawful after SFFA.
What Next?
In the meantime, while we float in these murky waters and await further guidance, here are some things to consider regarding DEI initiatives in the workplace. While we will continue to monitor litigation challenging employment-based DEI initiatives in the wake of SFFA, so should you. Monitor how courts are applying the holdings of SFFA and interpreting anti-DEI legislation. Review current DEI-initiatives and consider amending policies that focus on quotas and benchmarks; instead, make the primary focus of the initiatives the removal of potential biases in recruiting and hiring decisions. Be mindful of your recruitment pool, explore all available avenues to identify qualified candidates, and consider your selection criteria. Draw upon the diversity you already have in the workplace to establish a diverse hiring team. Finally, use the resources suggested and offered by the EEOC, as you shape and amend your initiatives while you strive to meet your obligations to truly be an Equal Opportunity employer. Stay tuned to this evolving legal battlefield, which fight we anticipate is just getting started.
* Kaleb McKinnon, Law Clerk, assisted in the research and drafting of this post. McKinnon is a graduate of Drake University Law School and will be sitting for the Missouri Bar Exam in July 2024.

Employers Subject to More Lenient Standard for FLSA Exemptions from Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay Provisions ...

Requirements of the New Illinois Pay Transparency Amendment ...
About Employment & Labor Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Employment & Labor Law Blog examines topics and developments of interest to employers, Human Resources professionals, and others with an interest in recent legal developments concerning the workplace. This blog is focused on the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, including Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and on major developments under federal law, and at the EEOC and NLRB. Learn more about the editor, David M. Eisenberg, and our Employment & Labor practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Employment & Labor Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Employment & Labor Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Employment & Labor Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.