Latest news with #MarleanAmes
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination.
There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. There is just discrimination. It doesn't matter if someone is White or Black, straight or gay, male or female. It only matters if they've been discriminated against. On June 5, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision removing barriers for members of majority groups to file anti-discrimination suits. In this case, Marlean Ames, a straight woman, filed a suit against her employer, which she said denied a promotion in favor of a gay woman, and later demoted her in favor of a gay man filling her role. The news media covering this decision has widely referred to it as a 'reverse discrimination' case, but that shows their understanding of discrimination is wrong. The unanimous decision from the court in this case is correct and offers valuable lessons for how the left needs to rethink its group politics. The ruling overturns a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that placed a heightened burden upon a plaintiff who is a member of a "majority group" in discrimination cases, requiring that the plaintiff shows 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Essentially, the lower court established different criteria for determining whether a single person had a valid discrimination case against an employer, compared with a person who was part of the majority. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional, sending the case back to a lower court. Opinion: Trump abandons his most impressive presidential legacy ‒ conservative judges Different rules based on different groups is precisely the kind of discrimination that American law prohibits. This is the spirit of all of American anti-discrimination law, including the relevant statute in this case, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents employment discrimination based on all sorts of characteristics. The only test in cases of discrimination should be if you prove you were discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic. If yes, you have a case. If not, you don't. There is no need to consider whether somebody is even a part of a minority group, or even how their discrimination plays into any sort of broader civil rights struggle. In this case, because the plaintiff was straight, the lower court added an additional burden for her to prove discrimination than if a gay person had filed an identical suit. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Title VII provides far more detail on how one proves discrimination than my haphazard framework, but the spirit is the same in that there is no mention of one's group status being a determining factor. 'As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,' writes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for the unanimous decision. In the decision at issue, the court reached consensus, with all nine justices signing on to Justice Jackson's opinion. While unanimous decisions are not uncommon, what is interesting about this case is that the liberal justices have signed on to an approach typically favored by conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas has long advocated for constitutional colorblindness, and the reality is that American law treats all characteristics equally in its application of laws. Opinion: Vance is doing his best to help Trump tear down the Supreme Court This very issue divided the nation's highest court into its respective ideological leanings just two years ago, when Students for Fair Admissions won against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, resulting in affirmative action admissions practices being outlawed nationwide. In that very decision, Justice Jackson authored a fiery dissent against the colorblind approach of the majority opinion. While that case deals with race and this one deals with sexual orientation, any protected characteristic should be viewed the same. Decisions like these make Justice Jackson's jurisprudence all the more frustrating. The same principles that demand neutrality of the law in some areas are suddenly thrown out the window when it comes to affirmative action. I hope that the recent case is a genuine change of heart from Justice Jackson and the other liberal justices, but I fear that this case is just another puzzling inconsistency from the court's junior justice. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court ruling in discrimination case is step forward | Opinion
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed on June 5 that a worker faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she'd been gay. The unanimous decision, which landed amid a national backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion programs, could trigger a wave of 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits. The justices rejected a lower court's ruling that Marlean Ames could not sue the Ohio Department of Youth Services because she'd failed to provide 'background circumstances' showing the department was 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' That's a test created in 1981 by a federal appeals court used by many, but not most, of the federal courts when assessing claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in 1981 that while white people are covered by the Civil Rights Act, it defied common sense 'to suggest that the promotion of a black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.' But the law itself, which bans discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, sex or national origin,' doesn't set different thresholds for members of minority and majority groups. The Supreme Court said the "background circumstances rule" can't be squared with the text of the law or the court's previous rulings. "And nothing Ohio has said, in its brief or at oral argument, persuades us otherwise," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the Two men fought for jobs in a river-town mill. 50 years later, the nation is still divided. Ames' lawyers told the justices her suit would not have been dismissed at this stage of the litigation had she been gay and the employees who got the jobs she wanted were straight. "We are overjoyed that the court saw the case our way," Edward Gilbert, an attorney for Ames, said after Thursday's ruling. During the court's discussion of the case in February, Ohio's solicitor general did not defend the 'exact language' the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used when rejecting Ames' suit over insufficient 'background circumstances.' But T. Elliot Gaiser, the solicitor general, argued that Ames still failed to show enough evidence that her sexual orientation played any role in the hiring decisions she questioned. Ames twice lost jobs at the Ohio Department of Youth Services to other candidates she thought were less qualified, both of whom were gay. The department said she was passed over for a promotion because she lacked the necessary vision and leadership skills, not because she happened to be straight. Officials said she was then demoted from her administrator position because she wouldn't bring a proactive approach to the department's increased emphasis on combatting sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system. The Supreme Court's decision in Amex v. Ohio Department of Youth Services doesn't settle Ames' discrimination claim but only revives it for additional court proceedings. Dominic Binkley, spokesperson for the Ohio attorney general's office, said the state will continue to make its case that the department did not discriminate against Ames. Evan Parness, an expert on employment law at Covington & Burling, said more 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits may now clear an initial hurdle. But employers can still stop the suit from proceeding to trial by demonstrating that the disputed act was made for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Contributing: Reuters (This story was updated to include new video.) This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court sides with straight woman claiming job discrimination
National Post
17-06-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Peter MacKinnon: U.S. Supreme Court's DEI decision has lessons for Canada
The United States Supreme Court is seen to be sharply divided between conservative and liberal jurists so it is noteworthy when it speaks with one voice. In Ames v. Ohio, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a unanimous decision that is viewed by some as resetting the diversity, equity and inclusion debate. Article content Marlean Ames is a heterosexual woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services, initially as a secretary, subsequently promoted to program administrator and applying in 2019 to enter management. Her application was unsuccessful when the department instead hired a lesbian and demoted Ames from her administrative position — restoring her to a secretarial post — and replacing her with a gay man. Alleging discrimination because she is straight, she sued under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, unsuccessfully at trial and in the circuit appeals court, but successfully on appeal to the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson observed, with emphasis, that the Act makes it unlawful 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge ANY INDIVIDUAL, or otherwise to discriminate against ANY INDIVIDUAL with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin.' That Ames was a member of a non-gay majority did not affect the result; 'the law's focus on individuals rather than groups (is) anything but academic.' Article content Article content Article content The case was remitted to the lower courts for correction, but it is Justice Jackson's emphasis on individuals that is important here. It is individuals who have equality before the law and it is individuals who must be protected from discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. This does not preclude considerations of race, colour, or other traits, when addressing comparative advantage or disadvantage; it insists only that the focus must be on individuals when making these comparisons. Article content Article content Taken along with the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling affirmative action unconstitutional, it is clear that the United States and Canada part ways on issues of equality, discrimination and affirmative action. Their laws on these subjects are similar: the U.S. Civil Rights Act and Fourteenth Amendment, and Canada's Charter Section 15(1) and its equivalent in provincial human rights codes, guarantee equality before the law and protection from discrimination based on immutable conditions. But here the similarities end. The unconstitutionality of affirmative action and the emphasis on individual rights in the U.S. stand in marked contrast with the extensive practice of affirmative action and emphasis on group rights in Canada. Article content The American experience has lessons for Canadians; we, too, need to reset the DEI debate. Although some group rights are recognized in our Constitution (e.g. Indigenous peoples and minority languages), they do not mandate special treatment apart from their specific texts. The issues here are broader and more fundamental: do we see affirmative action, sanctioned by Section 15(2) of the Charter, as an exception to a general rule prohibiting discrimination, or does its extensive practice in our public institutions suggest that the exception is becoming the rule? Should we re-emphasize individual rights as a unanimous Supreme Court did in Ames v. Ohio? Is DEI a benign practice or an ideological cover for discriminatory practices? If we do not face these questions, test them in our courts, and develop a social consensus around them, differences among Canadians that we have seen to date will pale beside those to come. Article content
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What CFOs should take away from the Ames v. Ohio decision
This story was originally published on To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily newsletter. In a landmark decision on June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services struck down the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, leveling the playing field for Title VII discrimination claims by now allowing all employees — regardless of their majority or minority status — to face the same evidentiary standard. For CFOs, this ruling signals heightened litigation risks and a need to consult with human resource leaders about hiring practices and potentially politically driven narratives being woven into corporate goals and messaging. In this collaboration, it's not just about a need for robust compliance strategies, but also an opportunity to assess the politicization of leadership and the organization's workforce. As companies face potential increases in lawsuits from majority-group employees who may have fallen victim to race, gender or sexual orientation based-discrimination in the name of a corporate DEI policy, financial leaders may have to reassess budgets for legal reserves, audit the contents of DEI programs in risk mitigation efforts and conduct workforce and pay equity audits to safeguard against costly claims and reputational damage. The case goes as follows: Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 by the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary and was later promoted to a program administrator. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was denied in favor of a lesbian woman. Shortly after, she was demoted to her original secretarial role with a pay cut, and a gay man was hired as program administrator. In response, Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation. The issue at hand with Ames, who is a heterosexual white woman, was whether Title VII plaintiffs who are members of majority groups (e.g., heterosexuals and white people) must meet a heightened evidentiary standard, specifically the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas legal framework. After multiple appeals to decisions requiring Ames to show a higher level of evidentiary standard, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Ames and has now unanimously agreed to repeal this extra burden of proof from what previously was determined as a 'majority' status. Legal experts now say this opens the door to new risk for CFOs. 'In the Ames case, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the legal standard for an employee to bring a discrimination lawsuit against their employer is the same, whether or not the employee is a member of a majority group or in the minority,' said Julie Levinson Werner, partner and vice chair of employment at Lowenstein Sandler. 'Previously, many courts around the country held that majority group plaintiffs, such as white men, had to also show 'background circumstances' that the employer was the unusual employer that discriminated against the majority,' Werner continued. 'Now, based upon the Court's decision, there is no longer the concept of a 'reverse discrimination' case, and any employee can sue their employer if they believe they have been subject to discrimination based upon their race, gender, ethnicity, etc.' Jasmine Ahmed, who has held multiple roles in global financial leadership and now provides fractional CFO services, said that, regardless of guidance, finance teams who are unintentionally diverse, in her experience, have always performed better. However, she says the politicization of the issue around DEI has drawn attention away from addressing challenges and into an attack on merit. Having a merit-based professional approach that comes with hard work and grit, she says, are core fundamentals of working and growing careers in corporate finance. 'If you ask any hiring manager, 'If you had complete autonomy, what would you want?' it doesn't matter if it's in finance or not — the answer is always the same,' Ahmed said. 'I've never met anyone who says, 'I want to hire someone underqualified.' What do we hear instead? 'I want the best person for the job' because when the best person does the job, life is easier.' Ahmed said this is a core component of finding talent in finance, and using merit as an indicator of talent shouldn't be a political issue. 'That basic idea isn't political,' she said, 'it's rooted in qualifications, skills, experience and mindset. Those are the components of merit.' Ahmed said finance leaders can take steps to proactively work against ideas of race or sexuality playing a role in growth at their organizations by making sure merit and skill sets are the groundwork for talent evaluation. 'If you look at my track record, go research who's been on my teams, you'll see a pattern,' Ahmed said. 'Not only were they high-performing, they were also diverse. But that wasn't by design. It came from a culture that promotes merit.' She said she rejected traditional hiring tactics she saw in her career as part of this strategy. 'What was different [with my teams] is I didn't allow nepotism,' she said. 'I made talent development a priority for everyone. It wasn't just about performance, it was about developing people and holding managers accountable for doing the same. When you do that, you naturally build a strong, diverse bench.' When asked if she's ever seen a DEI policy in her experience that wasn't about box checking or politics, Ahmed candidly explained that she has not. 'Unfortunately, no,' she said. 'Around the time of COVID and Black Lives Matter, DEI was the hot topic. What did we do? We started filling roles with either African Americans or white women, and at the time, I thought, hold on, DEI isn't about checking a box or meeting quotas.' She went on to explain how the narrative around DEI in the CFO community is now being tackled as a labor issue, a challenge that has been talked about for years. 'I go to conferences and hear the same thing: 'Talent is our big issue.' And I ask, 'What are you doing about it?' We've been talking about the problem for years, but we don't take action.' For those who are building careers around the industry of DEI policies and their incorporation into the workforce, the court's ruling creates a new challenge. However, for Sheryl Daija, CEO of BRIDGE, a DEI and action-oriented, member-driven 501c6 trade group for the global marketing industry, the ruling is a portrayal of 'civil rights protections as preferential treatment.' 'By eliminating the 'background circumstances' standard, the Court has made it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims without addressing the ongoing structural barriers that underrepresented communities continue to face,' said Daija. 'The concurrence by Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Neil] Gorsuch reveals the deeper motive: a sustained campaign to discredit DEI.' Daija went on to connect the language used by the justices in the concurring opinion to a political narrative against DEI policies. 'Their language [that is] citing briefs that call DEI an 'obsession' that causes 'overt discrimination' against majority groups signals hostility toward the very initiatives designed to correct long-standing inequities,' she said. Ahmed said organizations will likely follow one of two paths. 'One will ignore these issues, avoid the politics and take no real action, and they'll be blindsided,' she said. 'Their risk profile will go up, their teams will underperform, their innovation will stall.' She said the second group will take a more strategic approach and be much better off. 'They'll focus on solving the root problem, building strong, inclusive and high-performing talent for the future. If you solve for that, many of the risks and challenges will work themselves out over time.' Though she said this is seldom done in organizations she's familiar with, decisions like this — legal catalysts that come with a potential risk to the organizational growth projections — are sometimes what's needed to kick things into gear in a new direction. 'Culture is the hardest thing to change,' she said. 'I always tell clients, transformation is simple if you get the mindset right. With the right culture, people behave well even when no one's watching. You don't need as many rules, and everything becomes easier, but culture is also the one thing most executives don't invest in seriously.' Recommended Reading How CFOs can navigate DEI, its pullback and any legal repercussions in 2025
Forbes
11-06-2025
- Business
- 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.'
