Johnson & Johnson denies engaging in illegal DEI practices after group makes civil rights complaint
Johnson & Johnson is denying any wrongdoing after being accused of violating federal law and a Trump executive order with DEI hiring practices, according to an investigation request submitted by America First Legal (AFL).
"Johnson & Johnson has always been and will continue to be compliant with all applicable laws and has never engaged in any "illegal DEI,'" a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
AFL is accusing Johnson & Johnson of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the federal government's Equal Opportunity Clause by engaging in what they claim is unlawful hiring and employment practices that they have openly promoted in past disclosures.
The conservative legal watchdog is calling on the Department of Health and Human Services to launch an investigation into the drugmaker, claiming the company's commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion violates federal law and affects every aspect of the business.
"[Johnson & Johnson's] public representations regarding the role of 'equity' in its employment practices reveal that it systematically and intentionally ignores its compliance obligations and instead violates [their] equal opportunity assurances to the federal government," AFL wrote in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights.
According to Johnson & Johnson's 2023 Health for Humanity Report, the company sought to have 50% of its management positions held by women and 6.8% of management slots held by Black and African American employees by 2025 as part of its "aspirational goals." The report pointed to its progress in achieving 49% women representation and 6.5% Black and African American representation in management slots as of 2023.
"The Company's disregard for American civil rights is brazen. It boasts about 'creating equity across our systems and fostering and advancing a culture of inclusion,'" the AFL complaint said.
A LinkedIn business post entitled "How Johnson & Johnson is building a diverse talent pipeline" claimed that the pharmaceutical giant uses data to monitor its talent goals and holds leaders in the company accountable to them. The article claims the diversity of the talent pool they are recruiting from is tracked as part of this data.
"One of the measures we are starting to look at is, not just the readiness of the pipeline… but what does the diversity of that mix look like? In order to provide a score or an assessment of the strength of the pipeline," Johnson & Johnson executive Sarah McKensey said in a video interview that accompanied the article.
The article said the purpose of providing such an assessment on the talent pipeline was to ensure that diversity becomes "a natural feature of the hiring landscape" and said the company also holds external recruiters accountable for the diversity of their talent pool.
Johnson & Johnson's 2023 DEI Impact Report stated that its leaders are responsible for developing "diverse and inclusive teams" and its 2023 health and humanity report detailed how the company would partner with women's professional associations in order to achieve "parity" in management.
Johnson & Johnson had 3,719 contracts in 2024 with the departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, and other agencies, according to USAspending.gov, with $11.6 billion in potential total value. Upon taking office in 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning federal agencies from doing business with companies that engage in discriminatory DEI practices.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that "An unlawful employment or other hiring practice exists when race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is a motivating factor for any employment decision." Federal regulations state that federal agencies can cut off contracts from outfits that are not in compliance with the Civil Rights Act.
The AFL claims the Biden administration shirked its responsibility to investigate whether companies in the medical space were in violation of the civil rights act, and is urging the Trump administration to act now.
The company appears to have removed most of its DEI-related content from its public-facing website since Trump took office. The company's former DEI policy landing page, which once stated, "Johnson & Johnson and all its operating companies are committed to workforce diversity, creating equity across our systems, and fostering and advancing a culture of inclusion," now redirects to a more general appendix of ESG policies. The 2023 DEI impact report and the 2023 Health for Humanity report also redirect to the inclusion page. Another DEI landing page has been deleted and replaced with a more tepid "inclusion" page.
However, AFL contends that the drugmaker is merely trying to conceal its ongoing DEI violations, and demands a federal investigation to uncover whether it is in compliance with the Civil Rights Act.
"Until very recently, Johnson & Johnson proudly touted DEI policies on its website that AFL believes plainly violated the Civil Rights Act. Institutions across corporate America and academia are now taking steps to rebrand or conceal their unlawful DEI policies in order to evade detection and continue their discriminatory practices.HHS must investigate to determine whether Johnson & Johnson is still engaging in illegal discrimination and violating the Civil Rights Act," AFL Vice President Dan Epstein told Fox News Digital.
The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
Travel Ban Reinstated By Trump With Mostly Muslim Countries
President Donald J. Trump, citing national security concerns, has reinstated and expanded the controversial nationality-based travel ban first introduced during his initial term. The new ban, formalized in a Presidential Proclamation that came into effect on Monday, June 9, 2025, suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries, primarily targeting Muslim-majority and African nations. The proclamation fully suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance to nationals of 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It imposes partial restrictions on B-1/B-2 tourist visas and F, M, and J student and exchange visas for nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Exceptions apply to green card holders, dual nationals, certain special immigrant visa holders, athletes in international competitions, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The administration relies on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' That authority was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which ruled 5-4 that President Trump's third version of the travel ban was constitutional, emphasizing executive deference on immigration and national security. But critics argue that this expanded ban perpetuates discriminatory intent, noting the disproportionate impact on Muslim and African nations and the invocation of Trump's 2024 campaign pledge to 'restore the travel ban and keep radical Islamic terrorists out.' Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, predicts court challenges but warns that they may fail under the current precedent. 'Even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy,' he said. 'Families will be separated, and we are not necessarily safer.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order 'ideologically motivated,' 'unnecessary,' and 'overbroad,' criticizing its chilling effect on lawful travel, academic exchange, and humanitarian reunification. Legal scholars have started to question the constitutionality of this policy. More specifically, they contend that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from denying equal legal protection, while the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids favouring or disfavoring any religion. Critics argue that Trump's policy, which targets specific nations commonly associated with certain religions, risks violating both clauses by enabling discrimination based on nationality and faith. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national origin quotas to prevent such bias. By reinstating restrictions linked to religious or national identity, opponents claim the policy mirrors discriminatory practices that the law aimed to eliminate. Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, noted: 'Blanket nationality bans have never demonstrated any meaningful national security value. This ban hurts our economy and punishes immigrants who qualify to come legally.' According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 'In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute.' Nationals from the banned countries represent more than 475 million people globally. Beyond family separations, the ban may deter students, scientists, and health professionals at a time when the U.S. is experiencing labor shortages in STEM and healthcare. Universities like Harvard have expressed alarm at the targeting of international students, as the administration simultaneously suspended new visas for foreign scholars at select institutions, further stoking fears of ideological purges in academia. The 2025 travel ban echoes policies from Trump's first term and extends their scope. The first 'Muslim ban' of 2017 was repeatedly struck down until a more narrowly tailored version survived judicial review. Today's ban, while more procedurally refined, raises the same fundamental concern: are Americans safer by denying entry based on birthplace? Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the 1965 INA famously stated that 'the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system' would never return. Critics now argue that President Trump has revived that very shadow, using presidential proclamations instead of legislative quotas. 'This is not national security—it's national scapegoating,' said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. 'It undermines constitutional values and stigmatizes entire populations for political gain.' The legality of the 2025 travel ban reinstated as it is may pass muster under Trump v. Hawaii, but its morality, logic, and long-term consequences remain in question. As lawsuits mount and civil rights groups prepare their defences, the nation must decide: do we protect ourselves by shutting doors or by standing firm in our values of openness, equality, and due process?
The Verge
32 minutes ago
- The Verge
YouTube has loosened its content moderation policies
YouTube has relaxed its moderation policies and is now instructing reviewers not to remove content that might violate its rules if they're in the 'public interest,' according to a report from The New York Times. The platform reportedly adjusted its policies internally in December, offering examples that included medical misinformation and hate speech. In training material viewed by the Times, YouTube says reviewers should now leave up videos in the public interest — which includes discussions of elections, ideologies, movements, race, gender, sexuality, abortion, immigration, censorship — if no more than half of their content breaks its rules, up from one quarter. The platform said in the material that the move expands on a change made before the 2024 US election, which allows content from political candidates to stay up even if they violate its community guidelines. Additionally, the platform told moderators that they should remove content if 'freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk,' and take borderline videos to a manager instead of removing them, the Times reports. 'Recognizing that the definition of 'public interest' is always evolving, we update our guidance for these exceptions to reflect the new types of discussion we see on the platform today,' YouTube spokesperson Nicole Bell said in a statement to the Times. 'Our goal remains the same: to protect free expression on YouTube while mitigating egregious harm.' YouTube didn't immediately respond to The Verge 's request for comment. YouTube tightened its policies against misinformation during Donald Trump's first term as US president and the covid pandemic, as it began removing videos containing false information about covid vaccines and US elections. The platform stepped back from removing election fraud lies in 2023, but this recent change goes a step further and reflects a broader trend of online platforms taking a more lax approach to moderation followingTrump's reelection. Earlier this year, Meta similarly changed its policies surrounding hate speech and ended third-party fact-checking in favor of X-style community notes. The changes follow years of attacks on tech companies from Trump, and Google in particular is in a vulnerable legal situation, facing two Department of Justice antitrust lawsuits that could see its Chrome browser and other services broken off. Trump has previously taken credit for Meta's moderation changes. As noted by the Times, YouTube showed reviewers real examples of how it has implemented the new policy. One video contained coverage of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s covid vaccine policy changes — under the title 'RFK Jr. Delivers SLEDGEHAMMER Blows to Gene-Altering JABS' — and was allowed to violate policies surrounding medical misinformation because public interest 'outweighs the harm risk,' according to the Times. (The video has since been taken off the platform, but the Times says the reasoning behind this is 'unclear.') Another example was a 43-minute video about Trump's cabinet appointees that violated YouTube's harassment rules with a slur targeting a transgender person, but was left up because it had only a single violation, the Times reports. YouTube also reportedly told reviewers to leave up a video from South Korea that mentioned putting former president Yoon Suk Yeol in a guillotine, saying that the 'wish for execution by guillotine is not feasible.'
Bloomberg
34 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Clearlake Hires Lederman from KKR as Head of Capital Markets
Clearlake Capital Group hired Josh Lederman from KKR & Co. for the newly created role of head of capital markets, according to a spokesperson for the firm. In his new role, Lederman will oversee debt origination, underwriting and distribution in what Clearlake sees as a first step in building a broader capital markets team, an effort that includes obtaining a broker-dealer license.
