Equal Protection Project files civil rights complaint against Drake University
An organization involved in litigation with universities across the U.S. has filed a federal complaint against Drake University for allegedly violating Title VI. (Photo courtesy of Drake University)
An organization involved in litigation with universities across the U.S. has filed a federal complaint against Drake University in Des Moines, alleging one of its scholarship programs violates federal anti-discrimination law.
The Equal Protection Project, a branch of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, submitted a civil rights complaint Tuesday to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights against the private university. The organization, which says it is 'devoted to the fair treatment of all persons without regard to race or ethnicity,' claims in the complaint Drake is violating Title IV by limiting eligibility of one of its scholarship programs, the Crew Scholars Program, to students of color.
'Drake is expanding DEI activities at a time when the State of Iowa and the federal government are scaling back,' said William Jacobson, founder of the Equal Protection Project, in an emailed statement. 'Regardless of where one stands on the DEI debate, discrimination based on race violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Iowa state law, and Drake's own non-discrimination rules. Drake should open up the scholarship to all students without regard to race.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Drake University spokesperson Ashton Hockman said in an email the university cannot comment at this time, as it has not received any communication from the U.S. Department of Education.
The Crew Scholars Program is described online as an 'academic excellence and leadership development program for incoming students with a passion for diversity' that provides $500 annual scholarships to participating students.
According to the civil rights complaint, the scholarship program limits participation to students of color. The complaint cites as evidence a university website link and screenshots showing the program description including the language 'The Crew Scholars Program at Drake University is open to incoming domestic students of color in any major.'
A different website describing the scholars program eliminates references to race in who is allowed to apply.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act forbids 'intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin' in any program that receives federal support, the complaint stated, and as Drake University receives federal funding, it is in violation of the law. Referencing the U.S. Department of Education's Feb. 14 'Dear Colleague' letter, the complaint stated that regardless of its reasons for offering a 'discriminatory program,' Drake is still violating the law.
'Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights promptly open a formal investigation, impose such remedial relief as the law permits for the benefit of those who have been illegally excluded from Drake's various programs based on discriminatory criteria, and ensure that all ongoing and future programming at Drake comports with the federal civil rights laws,' the complaint stated.
Drake has reiterated its commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion multiple times as state and federal actions have required universities to pull back on such programming, including implementing new programming to ensure all students feel like they belong and speaking out against decisions that negatively impact campus and Drake students.
Drake President Marty Martin published a letter in early March telling students they are all welcome at the university despite contrary messages such as legislation to repeal the inclusion of transgender and nonbinary people in civil rights protections. Martin called the law 'one among many current state and federal efforts that seek to turn our differences into division.'
'This is a moral failure against which we stand in opposition,' Martin said in the letter. 'It is our duty to respect, support, and affirm anyone in our community targeted by these actions.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hiltzik: Forget tariffs — GOP proposals on student loans will crack the economy
While economists and the general public are preoccupied with the threat to U.S. economic growth stemming from Donald Trump's tariff policies, serious as that is, they may be overlooking another serious threat. This one comes from Trump's approach, abetted by Republicans in Congress, to the student loan crisis. It's not a trivial matter. Nearly 43 million Americans owe a combined $1.6 trillion in student debt, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Education. Efforts to relieve borrowers of this weight invariably proposed by Democrats have been stymied by conservatives on Capitol Hill and federal courts. "Instead of helping the 5 million borrowers that have fallen into default and the millions more that are behind and now at risk of default later this year, this Administration appears set on inflicting massive economic harm on millions of Americans. Aissa Canchola Bañez, Student Borrower Protection Center Now things look worse. There's no longer any talk in Congress of student loan relief. It's been supplanted by partisan efforts to increase the burden, by raising the costs of student loans and closing off paths for struggling borrowers to manage their payments. "Instead of helping the 5 million borrowers that have fallen into default and the millions more that are behind and now at risk of default later this year, this Administration appears set on inflicting massive economic harm on millions of Americans—a decision that will further drag down an already struggling economy,' Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for the Student Borrower Protection Center, said recently. The damage wreaked by Trump policies on student loans is already showing up in economic statistics. According to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about 9.7 million student loan borrowers have seen their credit scores plummet since late last year, when delinquencies and defaults on those loans began to be listed on credit reports. Many borrowers who enjoyed superprime credit scores (760 or higher on scales that typically top out at 850) could see their scores decline to subprime levels below 620. For those borrowers, the results could include "reduced credit limits, higher interest rates for new loans, and overall lower credit access," the N.Y. Fed reported. The credit score declines resulting from the resumption of college loan payments was a factor in a sharp increase in the rejection rate for mortgage refinancings, to nearly 42% in February from 26.7% a year earlier, to 14% on car loans from 1.5% a year earlier, and to 22% on credit card applications from 16.6% over the same period. Read more: A Wall Street solution on student loans that benefits (surprise!) the rich The consequences could be even broader. Many landlords check credit scores to judge potential tenants, those with low scores might be turned away. Fewer mortgage refinancings, auto purchases, and less credit generally are all drags on the economy. It's true that payments on student loans resumed during the Biden administration. Payments were suspended on federal student loans and and interest rates temporarily set at 0% during the pandemic emergency, beginning March 13, 2020. The pause ended as of October 2023, but the Biden administration provided a one-year "on-ramp" during which missed or delayed payments wouldn't show up in borrowers' credit reports. That ended early this year, triggering the credit score crash for borrowers in arrears or default. Biden's efforts to relieve the burden on millions of student borrowers were stymied by federal court rulings in lawsuits brought by conservative activists. More recently, the Trump administration has proceeded to tighten the screws on borrowers. On April 21, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced that defaulted loans would be put in collection, subjecting the borrowers to having their wages garnished and their federal tax refunds and even Social Security benefits seized to make the payments. (Responding to a public uproar, the administration backed away from plans to take Social Security benefits from an estimated 450,000 defaulting borrowers aged 62 and older who are receiving Social Security.) 'American taxpayers will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for irresponsible student loan policies,' McMahon said. Pressure on households struggling to afford higher education will be intensified by provisions in the budget bill passed narrowly on May 22 by the GOP majority in the House. The measure, which is pending before the GOP-majority Senate, takes several whacks at student aid and consequently the accessibility of higher education. Read more: Hiltzik: Republicans attacking student loan relief as a taxpayer burden got their own degrees on taxpayers' dime Among its provisions are these: — A change in the calculation of permissible student loans. Under current law, the figure is based on the cost of the program a student is attending. The proposal would peg loans to the median cost of all similar programs. That would leave students at higher-priced universities (such as private institutions) without the ability to access federal loans for the full cost of their education. As it happens, no system currently exists for determining the median prices. At the Department of Education's office that would make the calculation, almost all the employees have been fired. — The bill eliminates direct subsidized student loans for undergraduates, which don't accrue interest while the borrower is in school. — The bill raises the maximum in federal loans that a student can take out to $50,000, up from the current $31,000. But the current limit includes up to $23,000 in subsidized loans. Since those would no longer exist, the full amount would be in costlier unsubsidized loans. The Student Loan Protection Center calculates that the average borrower who takes out the maximum annual loan amount would pay nearly $2,900 more in interest over the current amount. — The GOP would eliminate the SAVE plan, which was implemented by the Biden administration but blocked by a federal appeals court ruling in a lawsuit brought by red states. The SAVE plan required enrollees to pay 5% of their discretionary income annually, with unpaid balances forgiven after 20 years (25 years for those with graduate loans). Those with original loans of $12,000 or less would have their balances forgiven after 10 years. Elimination of the plan would affect about 8 million student borrowers. — The GOP would scrap rules allowing borrowers to temporarily defer payments due to unemployment or economic hardship and limits. It also places new limits on forbearance — a temporary pause on loan payments — which states loans can't be in forbearance for more than 9 months during any 24-month period. Read more: Hiltzik: Are Republicans who got pandemic debt relief hypocrites for complaining about student debt relief? Yes For all that Republicans crow about removing the burden on taxpayers from the student loan crisis, the real beneficiary of these changes would be the private student loan industry, such as banks and private equity firms, which long have hankered after the opportunities created by student loans. With fewer options available from federal programs, student borrowers would increasingly be thrust into the welcoming arms of Wall Street. That's a problem for student borrowers, because the private lending industry has a wretched history, rife with deceptive practices. Private lenders were the subject of more than 40% of student loan-related complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since 2011, even though they accounted for only 8% of outstanding loans. Private loans, moreover, lack some of the consumer protections traditionally provided by government loans, including deferrals, and typically carry higher interest rates. With their actions and proposals, McMahon and the GOP lawmakers have underscored the majestic hypocrisy of the student debt debate. Among the most common arguments against relief is that canceling existing debt would be unfair to all those who already paid off their loans. As I've explained in the past, this is the argument from pure selfishness and a formula for permanent governmental paralysis. In a healthy society government policy moves ahead by taking note of existing inequities and striving to address them. Following the implications of the 'I paid, why shouldn't you' camp to their natural conclusion means that we wouldn't have Social Security, Medicare or the Affordable Care Act today. Among the most common claims is that debt relief would disproportionately benefit wealthy families; in fact, low-income households would benefit the most, the Roosevelt Institute has shown. Read more: Hiltzik: Here's why the arguments against canceling student debt make no sense As I pointed out last year, among the Republicans who weighed in with tendentious lectures about meeting one's obligation to pay back a loan were members of Congress who had taken out loans of hundreds of thousands of dollars each from the pandemic-era Paycheck Protection Program — and had them completely forgiven. The GOP's lame defense was that the PPP loans were not expected to be repaid, if they were used to keep the borrowers' workers employed during the pandemic. Couple of problems with that: Days before Biden took office, the Small Business Administration deleted almost all the database red flags designating potentially questionable or fraudulent loans subject to further review. The red flags included signs that a recipient company had laid off workers or were ineligible to participate in the program. As many as 2.3 million loans, including 54,000 loans of more than $1 million each, thus may have received a free pass. Then there's the questionable ethics of elected officials taking massive advantage of a program they themselves enacted. They could have made themselves ineligible, but where's the fun in that? I observed separately that many congressional critics of loan relief had themselves received their college, graduate and professional educations as gifts from the taxpayers: They had attended public (i.e., taxpayer-supported) state universities, typically in an era when tuition for state residents was much lower than today, even accounting for inflation. Among those who were apparently educated on the taxpayers' dimes is Secretary McMahon, a North Carolina native who holds a degree from East Carolina University, a public institution supported by the taxpayers of North Carolina. I asked McMahon's office to reconcile her statement on student loans with her education at a public university, but received no reply. The threat to the economy is real and immediate. Households burdened with student debt tend to delay or forgo homeownership and face difficulties in starting a family or building up savings. Eradicating student debt, or even materially reducing its burden, would produce a significant economic stimulus. But who in the White House or on Capitol Hill is even listening? Get the latest from Michael HiltzikCommentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize me up. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Forget tariffs — GOP proposals on student loans will crack the economy
While economists and the general public are preoccupied with the threat to U.S. economic growth stemming from Donald Trump's tariff policies, serious as that is, they may be overlooking another serious threat. This one comes from Trump's approach, abetted by Republicans in Congress, to the student loan crisis. It's not a trivial matter. Nearly 43 million Americans owe a combined $1.6 trillion in student debt, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Education. Efforts to relieve borrowers of this weight invariably proposed by Democrats have been stymied by conservatives on Capitol Hill and federal courts. Now things look worse. There's no longer any talk in Congress of student loan relief. It's been supplanted by partisan efforts to increase the burden, by raising the costs of student loans and closing off paths for struggling borrowers to manage their payments. 'Instead of helping the 5 million borrowers that have fallen into default and the millions more that are behind and now at risk of default later this year, this Administration appears set on inflicting massive economic harm on millions of Americans—a decision that will further drag down an already struggling economy,' Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for the Student Borrower Protection Center, said recently. The damage wreaked by Trump policies on student loans is already showing up in economic statistics. According to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about 9.7 million student loan borrowers have seen their credit scores plummet since late last year, when delinquencies and defaults on those loans began to be listed on credit reports. Many borrowers who enjoyed superprime credit scores (760 or higher on scales that typically top out at 850) could see their scores decline to subprime levels below 620. For those borrowers, the results could include 'reduced credit limits, higher interest rates for new loans, and overall lower credit access,' the N.Y. Fed reported. The credit score declines resulting from the resumption of college loan payments was a factor in a sharp increase in the rejection rate for mortgage refinancings, to nearly 42% in February from 26.7% a year earlier, to 14% on car loans from 1.5% a year earlier, and to 22% on credit card applications from 16.6% over the same period. The consequences could be even broader. Many landlords check credit scores to judge potential tenants, those with low scores might be turned away. Fewer mortgage refinancings, auto purchases, and less credit generally are all drags on the economy. It's true that payments on student loans resumed during the Biden administration. Payments were suspended on federal student loans and and interest rates temporarily set at 0% during the pandemic emergency, beginning March 13, 2020. The pause ended as of October 2023, but the Biden administration provided a one-year 'on-ramp' during which missed or delayed payments wouldn't show up in borrowers' credit reports. That ended early this year, triggering the credit score crash for borrowers in arrears or default. Biden's efforts to relieve the burden on millions of student borrowers were stymied by federal court rulings in lawsuits brought by conservative activists. More recently, the Trump administration has proceeded to tighten the screws on borrowers. On April 21, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced that defaulted loans would be put in collection, subjecting the borrowers to having their wages garnished and their federal tax refunds and even Social Security benefits seized to make the payments. (Responding to a public uproar, the administration backed away from plans to take Social Security benefits from an estimated 450,000 defaulting borrowers aged 62 and older who are receiving Social Security.) 'American taxpayers will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for irresponsible student loan policies,' McMahon said. Pressure on households struggling to afford higher education will be intensified by provisions in the budget bill passed narrowly on May 22 by the GOP majority in the House. The measure, which is pending before the GOP-majority Senate, takes several whacks at student aid and consequently the accessibility of higher education. Among its provisions are these: — A change in the calculation of permissible student loans. Under current law, the figure is based on the cost of the program a student is attending. The proposal would peg loans to the median cost of all similar programs. That would leave students at higher-priced universities (such as private institutions) without the ability to access federal loans for the full cost of their education. As it happens, no system currently exists for determining the median prices. At the Department of Education's office that would make the calculation, almost all the employees have been fired. — The bill eliminates direct subsidized student loans for undergraduates, which don't accrue interest while the borrower is in school. — The bill raises the maximum in federal loans that a student can take out to $50,000, up from the current $31,000. But the current limit includes up to $23,000 in subsidized loans. Since those would no longer exist, the full amount would be in costlier unsubsidized loans. The Student Loan Protection Center calculates that the average borrower who takes out the maximum annual loan amount would pay nearly $2,900 more in interest over the current amount. — The GOP would eliminate the SAVE plan, which was implemented by the Biden administration but blocked by a federal appeals court ruling in a lawsuit brought by red states. The SAVE plan required enrollees to pay 5% of their discretionary income annually, with unpaid balances forgiven after 20 years (25 years for those with graduate loans). Those with original loans of $12,000 or less would have their balances forgiven after 10 years. Elimination of the plan would affect about 8 million student borrowers. — The GOP would scrap rules allowing borrowers to temporarily defer payments due to unemployment or economic hardship and limits. It also places new limits on forbearance — a temporary pause on loan payments — which states loans can't be in forbearance for more than 9 months during any 24-month period. For all that Republicans crow about removing the burden on taxpayers from the student loan crisis, the real beneficiary of these changes would be the private student loan industry, such as banks and private equity firms, which long have hankered after the opportunities created by student loans. With fewer options available from federal programs, student borrowers would increasingly be thrust into the welcoming arms of Wall Street. That's a problem for student borrowers, because the private lending industry has a wretched history, rife with deceptive practices. Private lenders were the subject of more than 40% of student loan-related complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since 2011, even though they accounted for only 8% of outstanding loans. Private loans, moreover, lack some of the consumer protections traditionally provided by government loans, including deferrals, and typically carry higher interest rates. With their actions and proposals, McMahon and the GOP lawmakers have underscored the majestic hypocrisy of the student debt debate. Among the most common arguments against relief is that canceling existing debt would be unfair to all those who already paid off their loans. As I've explained in the past, this is the argument from pure selfishness and a formula for permanent governmental paralysis. In a healthy society government policy moves ahead by taking note of existing inequities and striving to address them. Following the implications of the 'I paid, why shouldn't you' camp to their natural conclusion means that we wouldn't have Social Security, Medicare or the Affordable Care Act today. Among the most common claims is that debt relief would disproportionately benefit wealthy families; in fact, low-income households would benefit the most, the Roosevelt Institute has shown. As I pointed out last year, among the Republicans who weighed in with tendentious lectures about meeting one's obligation to pay back a loan were members of Congress who had taken out loans of hundreds of thousands of dollars each from the pandemic-era Paycheck Protection Program — and had them completely forgiven. The GOP's lame defense was that the PPP loans were not expected to be repaid, if they were used to keep the borrowers' workers employed during the pandemic. Couple of problems with that: Days before Biden took office, the Small Business Administration deleted almost all the database red flags designating potentially questionable or fraudulent loans subject to further review. The red flags included signs that a recipient company had laid off workers or were ineligible to participate in the program. As many as 2.3 million loans, including 54,000 loans of more than $1 million each, thus may have received a free pass. Then there's the questionable ethics of elected officials taking massive advantage of a program they themselves enacted. They could have made themselves ineligible, but where's the fun in that? I observed separately that many congressional critics of loan relief had themselves received their college, graduate and professional educations as gifts from the taxpayers: They had attended public (i.e., taxpayer-supported) state universities, typically in an era when tuition for state residents was much lower than today, even accounting for inflation. Among those who were apparently educated on the taxpayers' dimes is Secretary McMahon, a North Carolina native who holds a degree from East Carolina University, a public institution supported by the taxpayers of North Carolina. I asked McMahon's office to reconcile her statement on student loans with her education at a public university, but received no reply. The threat to the economy is real and immediate. Households burdened with student debt tend to delay or forgo homeownership and face difficulties in starting a family or building up savings. Eradicating student debt, or even materially reducing its burden, would produce a significant economic stimulus. But who in the White House or on Capitol Hill is even listening?
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Supreme Court Didn't Make DEI Illegal In Ames Ruling, Lawyers Explain
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services lowered the initial ... More hurdle for pursuing reverse discrimination claims under Title VII in some states, but legal experts say that corporate DEI initiatives remain legal. As predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services has fueled assertions of a lethal strike against corporate diversity, equity and inclusion. But legal experts on DEI warn: not so fast. Ames is a 'reverse discrimination' case, in which a member of a majority group alleges discrimination in favor of a minority group. Although Ames did not involve a DEI initiative, reverse discrimination claims have become the go-to legal tool for challenging corporate DEI programs. So when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employee in Ames, DEI critics claimed victory. But legal experts say that characterizing Ames as an anti-DEI ruling is more rhetoric than reality. Although the Supreme Court revived Ames's case, the decision only addressed a narrow issue about the test that some states used for initial review of reverse discrimination claims. Employment law experts explain that the Ames decision does not change the legality of DEI programs. Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was an administrator at a youth services agency. Ames applied for a promotion to become a Bureau Chief. She did not receive that job and was instead demoted. The employer hired a gay man to fill her former administrator position and selected a lesbian woman for the Bureau Chief job. Ames filed a federal lawsuit claiming that her employer discriminated against her because she is heterosexual in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Supreme Court held in the 2020 case of Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII also protects sexual orientation and gender identity. Although sexual orientation is a protected status, the lower courts dismissed Ames's Title VII lawsuit for insufficient evidence of discrimination. All employees who file Title VII claims must overcome an initial hurdle for their lawsuit to move forward for review. Because Ames was claiming reverse discrimination, the court in her jurisdiction required an extra showing of 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Ames could not meet the 'background circumstances' requirement to move her case forward. The decision makers who denied Ames a promotion and demoted her were not gay. And there was no evidence that her employer had a pattern of discriminating against heterosexual employees. So the lower courts dismissed her claim for lack of evidence of discrimination. Ames appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Five of the federal circuits (covering about 20 states) used the extra 'background circumstances' requirement for the initial review of reverse discrimination claims, while seven federal circuits (covering about 30 states) did not. The Supreme Court agreed to review Ames's case to resolve this conflict on the standard for initiating a reverse discrimination claim. On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that lower courts should not use the 'background circumstances' requirement in their initial assessment of reverse discrimination claims. The Court held that all Title VII claims—whether brought by a member of a majority or minority group—should be reviewed using the same standard. In the Ames decision, the Supreme Court also reinforced its prior ruling in Bostock that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. 'The case reaffirms the coverage that exists for all LGBT individuals under Title VII today that the EEOC should be actively protecting,' said Chai R. Feldblum, former EEOC Commissioner, via email. Employment law experts largely agree that the Supreme Court correctly interpreted Title VII to apply the same standard to all employees. 'Our anti-discrimination laws protect everyone,' said Jenny Yang, former EEOC Chair and partner at Outten & Golden, via email. 'Title VII does not provide a basis to apply a heightened standard to certain individuals based on their race or gender.' The Supreme Court's decision in Ames was unsurprising in part because it is a narrow, technical ruling, rather than a change in law. 'The Ames decision did not create a sea-change in the law,' said Victoria Slade, counsel with Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, via email. 'It was already illegal to discriminate against people in majority groups—the Supreme Court decided only that lower courts should not require plaintiffs in majority groups to prove an extra factor in order to show they have enough evidence to get to trial,' said Slade. 'The fact that liberal Justice Jackson authored the decision, and that it was 9-0, is a good indication that the result is not controversial.' The ruling does not mean that Ames herself has proved that her employer discriminated against her because she is heterosexual. The ruling also does not mean that Ames has won—or will win—her reverse discrimination claim. Instead, the Supreme Court sent Ames's case back to the lower court to reconsider whether her case could meet the initial step to continue without using the 'background circumstances' requirement. If the lower court allows Ames's case to move forward, the employer may still show that its hiring decisions were based on legitimate reasons unrelated to Ames's heterosexual orientation. And Ames could still lose her reverse discrimination claim. Ames did not challenge a DEI initiative. Ames just argued that her employer individually discriminated against her because she is heterosexual by selecting gay workers for the two positions she desired. So why are DEI opponents claiming that Ames is a 'huge blow' to corporate DEI? The Ames decision matters because members of majority groups have increasingly used reverse discrimination claims to challenge DEI initiatives, particularly on the basis of race, sex and national origin. To date, reverse discrimination claims targeting corporate DEI programs have been largely unsuccessful. DEI critics assert that by lowering the legal standard for initiating reverse discrimination claims in Ames, the Supreme Court effectively made corporate DEI illegal by making it easier for members of majority groups to sue under Title VII. Employment law experts disagree for three reasons. First, the Supreme Court's decision to eliminate the 'background circumstances' requirement in reverse discrimination claims only affects cases in the five federal circuits that previously used that evidentiary standard. The other seven federal circuits had never adopted the extra 'background circumstances' requirement for Title VII reverse discrimination claims. So the Ames decision has no impact at all in about 30 states. 'The 'background circumstances' test was only the law in certain jurisdictions,' said Slade. 'For the rest of us, there has been no change at all.' Second, the 'background circumstances' requirement only relates to the initial showing that employees must make to have their reverse discrimination cases move forward for review. The Supreme Court referred to this as just 'step one' in a multi-step review process. As with all Title VII claims, employers can still defend the case by showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision. Ames does not change the employee's ultimate burden to actually prove that the employer acted with a discriminatory motive. Ames herself may lose her reverse discrimination claim if there are legitimate reasons for her rejected promotion and her demotion unrelated to her heterosexual orientation. 'The Ames decision simply ensures that all plaintiffs—regardless of majority or minority status—are evaluated under the same framework,' said Alyesha Asghar, shareholder at Littler, via email. Employers can still 'show that employment decisions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons,' or use 'other established defenses.' Legal experts predict that the Ames decision may increase the number of reverse discrimination claims attempting to challenge DEI initiatives. Ames may also reduce the number of early case dismissals by making it easier for employees to get past 'step one' in the review process. That may require employers to spend more time and money defending reverse discrimination claims. But more claims does not mean an increased likelihood of success. 'Ames may open the door a bit wider for reverse discrimination claims to proceed past early stages,' said Asghar, 'but it doesn't change the legal standards that determine whether those claims ultimately succeed.' 'Most federal circuits already did not require the 'background circumstances' hurdle, and there hasn't been a flood of successful reverse discrimination claims in those jurisdictions,' said Asghar. 'That suggests we're unlikely to see a major uptick in successful claims even in the few circuits where the standard has now changed.' Third, and most importantly, the Ames decision eliminating the 'background circumstances' test used in some states does not change Title VII law on the legality of DEI initiatives. Ames only impacts how much initial evidence employees must offer to gain full review of their reverse discrimination claims. 'This decision has no effect at all on the DEI landscape, except to the extent it emboldens critics,' said Slade. 'It certainly does not change the law that applies to DEI programs.' While Ames 'clarified that 'reverse' discrimination claims should be evaluated under the same legal standards as any other Title VII claim,' said Asghar, 'the decision did not ban DEI programs or change what counts as discrimination under Title VII.' 'This case should not be viewed as some sort of death-knell for DEI,' agreed Slade. 'There are numerous cases where courts have found that common DEI programs do not discriminate against majority group plaintiffs, and they have done so under the standard discrimination test, not relying on the 'background circumstances' factor. Those cases are still good law.' Two former EEOC officials agree with this analysis. 'Anyone who thinks that this opinion will make it harder for employers to engage in DEI activities is misreading both the case and the law,' said Feldblum. 'As long as employers use the many legal means available for increasing diversity and inclusion, as described in the EEO Leadership Group Statement on DEI, this opinion changes nothing in that regard.' 'This decision does not impact the law governing employers' diversity, equity, and inclusion programs,' said Yang. 'As highlighted in our resource document, there are many strategies for employers to advance equal opportunity and remove barriers to opportunity for all that do not apply different standards to workers based on race, gender or other protected bases.' Feldblum and Yang are two of ten former EEOC officials who authored an April 3, 2025 Statement on DEI to clarify the legality of DEI practices. The statement explains that standard DEI practices that remain legal include using objective evaluation criteria, educating decision makers about the sources of bias, and conducting workplace training on bias reduction, harassment prevention, allyship and workplace inclusion. These practices are often necessary to ensure that employers are not discriminating in hiring, performance reviews and promotion decisions. It remains legal for employers to broaden their recruiting outreach to attract more diverse candidates, and to collect workforce data to audit diversity outcomes, according to the ten former EEOC officials. The Ames decision also does not affect the legality of employee resource groups, including affinity groups that focus on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. According to the ten experts, as long as employers ensure that ERGs are open to all employees who support the group's objectives, they do not violate Title VII. In contrast, using a protected status for a hiring quota or as the basis for a tangible workplace advantage has always been unlawful under Title VII. That also has not changed under Ames. But equating those types of practices with 'DEI' is a misnomer. As Asghar explained, 'employers can still defend well-designed DEI initiatives as nondiscriminatory—as long as those initiatives do not involve exclusion or preferences based on protected characteristics like race, sex, or sexual orientation.'
