Photo of Susan F. Eandi

Susan F. Eandi

Subscribe to Susan F. Eandi's Posts
Contact:Read more about Susan F. Eandi

The diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) landscape in the United States has undergone major shifts this year, driven by new executive actions, heightened regulatory scrutiny, deepening cultural and political divisions and emerging litigation trends. For legal practitioners advising employers, the past nine months have been marked by uncertainty, risk recalibration, and strategic decision-making.

This blog will bring you up-to-date on material developments and outline key takeaways for federal contractors and private companies from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s July 29 memorandum titled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination.”

Level Set: The Executive Orders and Federal Retrenchment

In January 2025, President Trump signed a series of executive orders (EOs) aimed at unlawful DEI programs, revoking race, ethnicity and gender-based affirmative action requirements for federal contractors, and directing public and private entities to end policies that constitute “illegal DEI discrimination.”

The EOs do not change existing federal discrimination laws, such as the bedrock prohibitions on discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The EOs do not categorically ban any private employer DEI programs. Rather, the EOs direct federal agencies and deputize private citizens to root out (through investigations, enforcement actions, or False Claims Act (FCA) litigation) “illegal discrimination and preferences” and, for government agencies, to take particular actions. They reflect the policy view that many DEI policies violate federal anti-discrimination laws because these laws prohibit employment decisions based on certain demographic characteristics, while DEI may promote employment decisions on this basis. For more on the specific details of the EOs, read our blog, A Roadmap to Trump’s DEI Executive Orders for US Employers.

Catching Up: Legal Challenges to the Orders and Their Current Status

The EOs have faced multiple legal challenges, with various organizations and entities suing the Trump administration. In one of the most significant cases, a federal district court in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of three key provisions from Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 in February. Then, in March, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction, allowing the Trump administration to enforce the executive orders while litigation continues. This week, oral arguments are being heard before a panel of Fourth Circuit judges.

As of September 22, 2025, several courts have issued contradictory rulings on the constitutionality of the EOs. The Supreme Court also determined that federal courts generally lack authority to issue nationwide injunctions, in its June 27, 2025 decision in the Trump v. CASA. Accordingly, the path for the Trump administration to enforce the EOs remains open. Federal agencies’ main enforcement mechanism under the EOs is terminating federal contracts and requiring federal contractors to certify that they do not operate any DEI programs that violate federal anti-discrimination law.

Following the Timeline: Breaking Down the Guidance from Federal Agencies and Recent Enforcement Activity

Over the last several months, federal agencies have been taking action to combat illegal DEI practices. Several agencies have sent companies requests to certify that they are not in violation of federal anti-discrimination law, and that this is material to the government’s funding decision, per the EO’s certification requirement.

Federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have also issued requests for information to certain companies (usually based on publicly available information) expressing concerns about their DEI practices. Requests have asked for information about various DEI-related topics, including hiring and promotion processes, diversity goals, application and selection criteria for fellowship programs, and participation in diversity internship programs.

In March, the FCC Chairman stated that the agency would use its “public interest” review of mergers and acquisitions to target companies with certain DEI programs. In response, several large telecommunications and media companies with pending mergers scaled back their DEI initiatives.

Also in March, the EEOC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued published a joint one-page technical assistance document entitled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” which provides examples of potential DEI-related discrimination under Title VII and directs employees who suspect they have experienced DEI-related discrimination to promptly notify the EEOC. Simultaneously, the EEOC also published a longer technical assistance document (“What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work”) with eleven questions and answers addressing the process for asserting a discrimination claim and the scope of protections under Title VII as they relate to DEI programs.

The joint guidance makes clear that any employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic, is unlawful discrimination, and the law does not distinguish between “reverse” discrimination against historically privileged groups and discrimination against minority or historically disadvantaged groups.[1] This guidance, while not binding, sets forth the agencies’ interpretation of the law, and as a result has influenced employer risk assessments and prompted internal reviews of hiring and promotion practices. (More here in our blog, EEOC and DOJ Issue Joint Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination.)

In April, President Trump issued Executive Order 14281 directing federal agencies like the EEOC and the DOJ to deprioritize enforcement of anti-discrimination laws using the “disparate impact” theory of legal liability. Disparate impact is legal doctrine in US anti-discrimination law that allows plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims with respect to facially neutral practices that have a disproportionately adverse effect on members of protected groups—such as racial minorities or women—even if there is no intent to discriminate. It was recently reported that the EEOC plans to close by the end of month all pending worker charges based solely on unintentional discrimination claims and issue “right to sue” notices allowing plaintiffs to pursue those claims in court. This would mark another significant enforcement shift for the agency in recent months. The EEOC has already curtailed litigating and processing claims of discrimination based on transgender status under Title VII.

In May, the DOJ launched the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which uses the FCA to target entities that misrepresent compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws to receive federal funds. The FCA’s qui tam mechanism allows private citizens (relators) to sue on behalf of the federal government and share in any recovery. The DOJ has encouraged whistleblowers to come forward, and in recent weeks the DOJ has issued civil investigative demands (CIDs) to federal contractors and grantees seeking documents and information related to their DEI practices.

Most recently, on July 29, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum to federal agencies entitled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” (DOJ Memo). The memo signals a substantial shift in how the DOJ intends to interpret and enforce federal anti-discrimination laws—particularly in relation to DEI initiatives. The memo itself does not have the force of law, instead it reflects how the DOJ interprets and intends to apply federal anti-discrimination law. While the memo is directed at educational institutions and private entities receiving federal funding, its examples of unlawful discrimination are relevant to all employers.Continue Reading An Employer’s Back-to-School Guide on Recent Developments in Workplace DEI

In 2025, multinational giants across industries are redefining the scale and scope of global workforce reductions—with some cutting tens of thousands of jobs at a time in particular divisions, shuttering certain factories worldwide, moving to different countries, or otherwise undertaking large-scale restructuring—and this trend is likely to press on. Indeed, the World Economic Forum’s Chief People Officers Outlook – September 2025 shows 42% expect continued turbulence in the year ahead. These sweeping moves, driven by AI disruption, economic recalibration, and strategic realignment, underscore the urgent need for legally sound, jurisdiction-sensitive approaches to reductions in force.  

Headcount reductions can be achieved using a variety of different mechanisms ranging from performance-based terminations, redundancy-based layoffs, location-based closures or other indirect strategies like attrition management, voluntary separation programs, and early retirement incentives. No matter the approach or structure for implementing a global reduction in headcount, executing a major business change while mitigating legal exposure requires a nuanced understanding of local employment laws, cultural expectations, justification requirements, local regulations impacting the treatment of equity awards, as well as potential immigration and visa implications. Missteps during the planning or execution stage can trigger material employment claims, unexpected and substantial financial and operational costs, regulatory fines, operational disruption and reputational damage.

Fortunately, there are tried and true methods to avoid most unintended effects and unwanted outcomes. Here we provide 10 practical planning tips for building your strategy when the company seeks to reduce its headcount through a global reduction in force (RIF).

The Economic Backdrop: A Mixed Outlook

Even with the uptick in layoffs, the global economy in 2025 is showing signs of resilience, with the International Monetary Fund projecting 3.0% growth this year and 3.1% in 2026. However, this modest optimism is tempered by persistent inflation, geopolitical tensions, and a surge in protectionist trade policies. According to the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025, slower growth is expected to displace 1.6 million jobs globally by 2030, with automation and digital transformation accelerating the shift.

In this climate, in-house legal counsel must be proactive in managing employment risks associated with cost-cutting, restructuring, and reductions in force.

Strategic Planning Tips for Your Global RIF Playbook

1. Level-set with key business stakeholders—communicate the jurisdictional complexity of a RIF involving multiple jurisdictions.

Employment protections vary widely around the world. While at-will employment in the United States allows for relatively straightforward terminations (barring union involvement or statutory notice requirements), most jurisdictions around the world (including the majority of Europe, as well as Canada, Australia and Japan) provide mandatory protections against dismissal, which often include articulating a legally justified reason for the RIF as well as taking additional procedural steps before employees are impacted. When constructing plans for a global RIF, it’s helpful to be clear with business leaders who are not employment counsel that it’s essential to build alternate timelines and costs based on jurisdiction-specific requirements.

Along these lines, engaging with local counsel early to navigate procedural nuances is key. This helps mitigate the risk of unforeseen complications, such as delays due to mandatory consultation periods, unexpected severance obligations, or exposure to legal claims arising from non-compliance with jurisdiction-specific requirements. Timescales and costs for RIFs are likely to increase as a result of legislative changes in 2026, underscoring the importance of checking local requirements early on.

2. Pressure-test the business justification for the RIF.

The starting point for analyzing reductions-in-force is understanding the legal threshold for a justified reduction (e.g., in Japan, there must be a strong economic justification for redundancies). Only very few international jurisdictions (e.g., Singapore and Switzerland) do not require employers to show specific grounds or justification for termination.Continue Reading Cutting Costs Without Cutting Corners: 10 Practical Tips for Managing Legal Risk in Global Reductions in Force

Driven by strategic, economic, and geopolitical factors, multinational companies are increasingly viewing expansion opportunities in the Middle East.

As one of the world’s most open and rapidly expanding economies, the region is a vital hub for global business, trade, and finance. Diversifying beyond oil and gas exports, the Middle East is now thriving across sectors…

On July 23, the White House unveiled its much-anticipated AI Action Plan. The Action Plan follows President Trump’s Executive Order 14179 of January 23 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”—which directed the development of the Action Plan within 180 days—and subsequent consultation with stakeholders to “define the priority policy actions needed to sustain and enhance America’s AI dominance, and to ensure that unnecessarily burdensome requirements do not hamper private sector AI innovation.” This update provides a summary of the Action Plan and key considerations for businesses developing or deploying AI.

The Action Plan is structured around three pillars: (I) Accelerating AI Innovation, (II) Building American AI Infrastructure, and (III) Leading in International AI Diplomacy and Security. Although, the AI Action Plan is not legally binding in itself, each pillar contains a number of policy recommendations and actions, which will subsequently need to be actioned by various government agencies and institutes.

Pillar I – Accelerating AI Innovation

Pillar I focuses on reducing the impact of regulation that may hamper AI development. To this end, the Action Plan instructs the Office of Management and Budget to “consider a state’s AI regulatory climate when making funding decisions and limit funding if the state’s AI regulatory regimes may hinder the effectiveness of that funding or award.” Pillar I emphasizes the need for workplace action that supports transition to an AI economy, citing AI literary and skill development among key workforce priorities.  The Action Plan also calls for federal- and state-led efforts to evaluate the impact of AI on the labor market. In order to promote advancements in American AI technologies, Pillar I specifically calls for investment in open-source AI models, support for the preparation of high-quality datasets for use in model training, and acceleration of the federal government’s adoption of AI.

Pillar II – Building American AI Infrastructure

Pillar II of the Action Plan includes actions aimed at strengthening the country’s AI infrastructure. The Action Plan seeks to streamline the expansion of America’s semiconductor manufacturing capabilities by removing extraneous policy requirements for CHIPS-funded semiconductor manufacturing operations.  Pillar II also focuses on the fortification of AI systems and other critical infrastructure assets against cybersecurity threats. In order to achieve these goals, the Action Plan proposes various measures to enhance cybersecurity protections such as sharing AI-security threat intelligence across critical infrastructure sectors and developing standards to facilitate the development of resilient and secure AI systems.Continue Reading US AI Vision in Action: What Businesses Need to Know About the White House AI Action Plan

Tune into our annual Global Employment Law webinar series as we bring the world to you.

Our Global Employment Law Fastpass webinar series is here again! Every June, we offer four regionally-focused webinars to help you stay up-to-speed on the latest employment law developments around the world. From tariffs and economic uncertainty to the use…

As discussed in our blog here, President Trump’s series of executive orders aimed at eradicating “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs across the federal government and in the private sector did not define the term “illegal discrimination.” On March 19, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice released guidance addressing this and outlining how DEI practices may be unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.

Together, the EEOC and DOJ issued a joint one-page technical assistance document entitled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” providing examples of “DEI-related discrimination” under Title VII and directing employees who “suspect [they] have experienced DEI-related discrimination” to “contact the EEOC promptly.” 

The EEOC simultaneously released more detailed guidance entitled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work,” which includes eleven questions and answers addressing the process for asserting a discrimination claim and the scope of protections under Title VII as they relate to DEI practices.Continue Reading EEOC and DOJ Issue Joint Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination

On March 14, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of President Trump’s executive orders related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (our summary of the DEI EOs is here). This decision temporarily reinstates the enforcement of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, pending further appellate review.

Background

As discussed here, on February 21, a Maryland district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, citing concerns that the EOs were likely to violate the First and Fifth Amendments by chilling free speech and due process. The preliminary injunction had blocked the federal government from forcing contractors and grantees to certify that they aren’t promoting “illegal DEI.”

The government defendants immediately filed a notice of appeal with the Fourth Circuit, while also seeking a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction. On March 3, the district court denied their request for a stay with Judge Abelson concluding that the potential harm of the orders outweighed the administration’s policy priorities.

The Fourth Circuit’s Panel Decision

The three-judge appellate panel unanimously stayed the injunction on March 14, with all three judges writing separate concurrences. There is an undercurrent in each opinion that the injunction came too early (for it’s unclear still what types of programs the government will try to eliminate) to determine if the government’s actions will implicate the First and Fifth Amendment concerns raised by plaintiffs. Also, the court takes the government defendant’s representations that the EOs are distinctly limited in scope and apply only to conduct that violates existing federal anti-discrimination law as true.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Allows Trump Administration to Enforce DEI EOs (For Now)

[UPDATE RE THE OMNIUS PROPOSAL HERE]

The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive is a regulation requiring covered companies to disclose information on what they see as the risks and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues, and on the impact of their activities on people and the environment.

The CSRD impacts not…

** UPDATE ** On March 3, 2025, the federal judge in the Maryland lawsuit denied the Trump administration’s request to stay the preliminary injunction discussed below.
The judge ruled that the administration failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and that the injunction was necessary to prevent potential violations of free speech
…

As you plan your to-dos for the year ahead, our “2025 Top 10” will guide you through the material employment law changes ahead in the Golden State. While we have not included all new California employment laws effective 2025, we’ve highlighted the major changes our clients need to know.

Key California ChangeEmployer To-Dos
(1)Minimum
…