WEBVTT - Trump Takes Aim at DEI Programs

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.480
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:08.920 --> 0:00:11.840
<v Speaker 2>I will also end the government policy of trying to

0:00:12.520 --> 0:00:17.119
<v Speaker 2>socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public

0:00:17.160 --> 0:00:18.200
<v Speaker 2>and private life.

0:00:18.840 --> 0:00:23.040
<v Speaker 3>And in sweeping executive orders. On Monday, President Donald Trump

0:00:23.320 --> 0:00:27.920
<v Speaker 3>ended diversity, equity and inclusion programs throughout the federal government,

0:00:28.160 --> 0:00:31.280
<v Speaker 3>and in an attempt to end DEI policies in the

0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:35.640
<v Speaker 3>private sector, he directed agencies to drop lists of private

0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:40.680
<v Speaker 3>sector companies to investigate over their DEI policies. He also

0:00:40.800 --> 0:00:45.160
<v Speaker 3>issued an executive order to end what he's called transgender lunacy.

0:00:45.640 --> 0:00:48.839
<v Speaker 2>It will henceforth be the official policy of the United

0:00:48.880 --> 0:00:54.640
<v Speaker 2>States government that there are only two genders, male and female.

0:00:54.800 --> 0:00:58.640
<v Speaker 3>Legal and advocacy groups condemned the orders, which will likely

0:00:58.680 --> 0:01:02.320
<v Speaker 3>be challenged in court. Joining me is Niche Verma, a

0:01:02.400 --> 0:01:06.559
<v Speaker 3>labor and employment litigation partner at Dorsey and Whitney. Nishe

0:01:06.640 --> 0:01:10.720
<v Speaker 3>he signed three executive orders relating to DEI. Start by

0:01:10.720 --> 0:01:13.080
<v Speaker 3>telling us about the first one, which has to do

0:01:13.160 --> 0:01:14.240
<v Speaker 3>with the federal government.

0:01:15.160 --> 0:01:19.119
<v Speaker 1>I would say the three orders put together are primarily

0:01:19.120 --> 0:01:23.440
<v Speaker 1>based on the federal government, which he of course has

0:01:23.440 --> 0:01:26.119
<v Speaker 1>a significant amount of control over. But then there's bleedover

0:01:26.240 --> 0:01:30.759
<v Speaker 1>and express regulations around private sector as well. So starting

0:01:30.800 --> 0:01:34.600
<v Speaker 1>with the I think most obvious within his purview, order

0:01:34.680 --> 0:01:40.399
<v Speaker 1>to dismantle DEI programs, the order is essentially just saying

0:01:40.440 --> 0:01:44.280
<v Speaker 1>that these programs are creating discrimination in the federal workplace,

0:01:44.600 --> 0:01:47.480
<v Speaker 1>harming the federal workplace, and therefore need to be removed.

0:01:48.000 --> 0:01:51.200
<v Speaker 1>And so there is a mandate, as you've seen, that

0:01:51.560 --> 0:01:54.440
<v Speaker 1>all individuals who are said to be in those roles

0:01:55.040 --> 0:01:57.600
<v Speaker 1>are to be put on paid leave I believe till

0:01:57.600 --> 0:02:00.960
<v Speaker 1>the end of the month and then terminated. Is interesting

0:02:01.000 --> 0:02:03.720
<v Speaker 1>in and of itself because there's no question as to

0:02:03.800 --> 0:02:06.560
<v Speaker 1>whether there's another job these people could be doing, and

0:02:06.600 --> 0:02:10.760
<v Speaker 1>that is something that their unions or any other advocate

0:02:10.800 --> 0:02:13.000
<v Speaker 1>for them would want to be asking. I think in

0:02:13.040 --> 0:02:17.000
<v Speaker 1>that aspect, it appears these people are being punished for

0:02:17.840 --> 0:02:22.000
<v Speaker 1>working in the DEI space in the federal government such

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 1>that they must lose their jobs, even if there is

0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:27.600
<v Speaker 1>something else they could be doing given their skills.

0:02:28.000 --> 0:02:31.360
<v Speaker 3>Let's say that there's no other position that they could take.

0:02:31.919 --> 0:02:34.320
<v Speaker 3>Is the government allowed to fire them or are their

0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:36.280
<v Speaker 3>protections for these workers?

0:02:36.919 --> 0:02:39.080
<v Speaker 1>Very many of these workers could be in any union, and

0:02:39.120 --> 0:02:41.960
<v Speaker 1>if so, they would have layoff provisions in that CBA,

0:02:42.360 --> 0:02:44.840
<v Speaker 1>and there would be just cause provisions in that CBA,

0:02:44.960 --> 0:02:48.000
<v Speaker 1>and so those unions would be reviewing those provisions to

0:02:48.040 --> 0:02:52.040
<v Speaker 1>see whether they can file agrievance and challenge the terminations.

0:02:52.440 --> 0:02:55.280
<v Speaker 1>There may be others that were like your guests on

0:02:55.400 --> 0:02:58.960
<v Speaker 1>yesterday's show, was indicating that whose job was always at

0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:01.520
<v Speaker 1>the pleasure of the administ station and we're always able

0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:04.280
<v Speaker 1>to be terminated at will, and that wouldn't change today.

0:03:04.560 --> 0:03:07.760
<v Speaker 1>There may be another bucket of people who, due to

0:03:07.919 --> 0:03:12.360
<v Speaker 1>the change to schedule s which took away some of

0:03:12.400 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 1>those protections for the civil workforce, could now be terminated

0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:18.800
<v Speaker 1>where that would not have been enough before.

0:03:19.800 --> 0:03:23.280
<v Speaker 3>And I found this a bit odd. Secretary of State

0:03:23.520 --> 0:03:27.720
<v Speaker 3>Marco Rubio, in a memo Warren state Department officials that

0:03:27.720 --> 0:03:31.720
<v Speaker 3>they'll have to face adverse consequences if they failed to

0:03:31.800 --> 0:03:37.000
<v Speaker 3>report on colleagues who've concealed or obscured existing DEI programs

0:03:37.000 --> 0:03:40.360
<v Speaker 3>at the department. So he's asking them to let me

0:03:40.440 --> 0:03:43.360
<v Speaker 3>use the legal term rat on their colleagues.

0:03:44.120 --> 0:03:46.800
<v Speaker 1>So the same order we're talking about, I'll go ahead

0:03:46.840 --> 0:03:50.520
<v Speaker 1>and say the name, which is ending radical and wasteful

0:03:50.600 --> 0:03:54.880
<v Speaker 1>government DEI programs and preferencing. So in that order, in

0:03:54.880 --> 0:03:59.160
<v Speaker 1>addition to the mandate that those programs be cut, those

0:03:59.160 --> 0:04:04.640
<v Speaker 1>people be fired, there is a request that anybody who

0:04:04.880 --> 0:04:08.920
<v Speaker 1>could be engaging in that sort of work but might

0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:14.119
<v Speaker 1>have a coded or ambiguous name that I would suppose

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:16.919
<v Speaker 1>conceals that they're engaging in that kind of work needs

0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:21.200
<v Speaker 1>to be essentially brought forward so they can't hide and

0:04:21.240 --> 0:04:24.640
<v Speaker 1>engage in these diversity supporting activities continuing to be in

0:04:24.680 --> 0:04:25.159
<v Speaker 1>the government.

0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:31.000
<v Speaker 3>He also revoked decades of executive orders, including the landmark

0:04:31.040 --> 0:04:35.320
<v Speaker 3>executive Order signed by President Lyndon Johnson in sixty five

0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:40.479
<v Speaker 3>to prevent discrimination in government employment and advance racial equality.

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:42.520
<v Speaker 3>Is that historic?

0:04:43.120 --> 0:04:46.360
<v Speaker 1>It's very historic. Just as that original order in nineteen

0:04:46.400 --> 0:04:49.640
<v Speaker 1>sixty five was historic. This is as well. There's an

0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:54.320
<v Speaker 1>entire federal agency that has been built around monitoring compliance

0:04:54.400 --> 0:04:58.160
<v Speaker 1>with this order. The way that federal contractors engage with

0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:02.680
<v Speaker 1>the federal government INCLU foods understanding that they have an

0:05:02.720 --> 0:05:08.280
<v Speaker 1>obligation to prohibit discrimination in the workplace. And of course,

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:10.919
<v Speaker 1>the original order has the word affirmative action, which is

0:05:11.000 --> 0:05:15.080
<v Speaker 1>where we get these requirements that federal contractors can't just say, hey,

0:05:15.120 --> 0:05:17.760
<v Speaker 1>we don't allow discrimination. They have to find ways to

0:05:17.839 --> 0:05:20.920
<v Speaker 1>show that. And the most important thing to understand is

0:05:21.120 --> 0:05:23.640
<v Speaker 1>when we talk about a change in presidential administrations, we

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:26.119
<v Speaker 1>talk about, oh, deregulation. This is going to make things

0:05:26.200 --> 0:05:29.919
<v Speaker 1>easier for employers because there was this thick packet of

0:05:29.960 --> 0:05:32.360
<v Speaker 1>regulations that they had to pour through and now they

0:05:32.400 --> 0:05:34.320
<v Speaker 1>can just put it on the shelf and forget about

0:05:34.320 --> 0:05:36.760
<v Speaker 1>it because they can do what they want. That's not

0:05:36.880 --> 0:05:40.159
<v Speaker 1>this order. This order is not just taking away those

0:05:40.200 --> 0:05:45.760
<v Speaker 1>affirmative action regulations. It is replacing them with new regulations

0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:50.200
<v Speaker 1>that are essentially letting employers know, hey, we are watching you.

0:05:50.440 --> 0:05:53.960
<v Speaker 1>If you, as a federal contractor, are engaging in any

0:05:54.000 --> 0:05:58.280
<v Speaker 1>sort of activity that could be seen as balancing your

0:05:58.320 --> 0:06:04.160
<v Speaker 1>workforce based on race, sects, etc. Then not only could

0:06:04.160 --> 0:06:07.080
<v Speaker 1>you lose your federal contract, you could be sanctioned and

0:06:07.320 --> 0:06:10.680
<v Speaker 1>potentially be subject to the False Claims Act. So this

0:06:10.839 --> 0:06:14.320
<v Speaker 1>isn't one of those actions that employers like to see

0:06:14.360 --> 0:06:18.320
<v Speaker 1>where they can put aside the regulations and just start

0:06:18.320 --> 0:06:21.400
<v Speaker 1>focusing on their core business. This is an onerous burden

0:06:21.520 --> 0:06:24.480
<v Speaker 1>on those employers. Some of them might say that have

0:06:24.560 --> 0:06:26.599
<v Speaker 1>to make sure that they're in line with what the

0:06:26.640 --> 0:06:29.480
<v Speaker 1>President wants here in order to continue to be considered

0:06:29.480 --> 0:06:34.040
<v Speaker 1>for federal contracting, and they have to do that pretty quickly.

0:06:34.080 --> 0:06:36.480
<v Speaker 1>They only have ninety days to go from the old

0:06:36.560 --> 0:06:39.280
<v Speaker 1>rules to the new rules. Whereas so much of their

0:06:39.320 --> 0:06:42.640
<v Speaker 1>procurement policies, some of the vendors and consultants they use,

0:06:43.160 --> 0:06:47.839
<v Speaker 1>may have been based on the longstanding Lyndon Johnson Executive Order,

0:06:47.880 --> 0:06:52.359
<v Speaker 1>which of course requires action to ensure that you're not

0:06:52.600 --> 0:06:56.080
<v Speaker 1>engaging in race discrimination. Now there's an expectation that you

0:06:56.160 --> 0:07:00.680
<v Speaker 1>show us that you are disregarding race focus on it

0:07:00.720 --> 0:07:02.600
<v Speaker 1>will be punished, and.

0:07:02.640 --> 0:07:05.800
<v Speaker 3>One of the orders will affect companies in the private sector.

0:07:06.160 --> 0:07:11.040
<v Speaker 3>It requires each federal agency to identify up to nine

0:07:11.120 --> 0:07:17.720
<v Speaker 3>potential civil compliance investigations of private sector entities, including publicly

0:07:17.760 --> 0:07:22.480
<v Speaker 3>traded corporations, nonprofits and foundations, state and local bar and

0:07:22.520 --> 0:07:28.160
<v Speaker 3>medical associations, and institutes of higher education. So every federal

0:07:28.200 --> 0:07:32.520
<v Speaker 3>agency is now going to be investigating private companies for

0:07:32.840 --> 0:07:34.080
<v Speaker 3>DEI violations.

0:07:35.040 --> 0:07:38.280
<v Speaker 1>It looks like every single agency, So I read that

0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:42.160
<v Speaker 1>as being obviously the EEOC, but also something that would

0:07:42.200 --> 0:07:45.960
<v Speaker 1>not come to mind immediately, like the EPA needs to

0:07:46.000 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 1>make sure that they're holding the private sector responsible to

0:07:49.440 --> 0:07:54.240
<v Speaker 1>end DEI priority. And yeah, it absolutely says the heads

0:07:54.240 --> 0:07:57.680
<v Speaker 1>of all agencies need to assist with that. And it's

0:07:57.720 --> 0:08:00.200
<v Speaker 1>also asking the Attorney General to come up with the

0:08:00.280 --> 0:08:03.400
<v Speaker 1>kind of report that you're mentioning, and that would be

0:08:03.520 --> 0:08:06.280
<v Speaker 1>quite a bit of companies, and it does not really

0:08:06.280 --> 0:08:09.040
<v Speaker 1>state the criteria for identifying that company. But I think

0:08:09.080 --> 0:08:11.680
<v Speaker 1>the most interesting thing for employers is this is not

0:08:11.880 --> 0:08:16.200
<v Speaker 1>an example of deregulation that makes it easier to do

0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:20.160
<v Speaker 1>one's job and engage with one's employees outside of the

0:08:20.200 --> 0:08:23.040
<v Speaker 1>purview of the federal government. This is a good example

0:08:23.040 --> 0:08:26.200
<v Speaker 1>of the federal government injecting itself into those relations. It

0:08:26.240 --> 0:08:28.440
<v Speaker 1>really is a we're watching you message.

0:08:28.720 --> 0:08:31.480
<v Speaker 3>Yeah. The Attorney General has one hundred and twenty days

0:08:31.840 --> 0:08:36.480
<v Speaker 3>to submit a report with enforcement recommendations, including potential litigation

0:08:36.720 --> 0:08:42.719
<v Speaker 3>or regulatory action. The order refers to illegal DEI discrimination

0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:47.000
<v Speaker 3>and preferences what's the basis for calling it illegal?

0:08:47.640 --> 0:08:51.000
<v Speaker 1>This in combined with the recent statements by the new

0:08:51.000 --> 0:08:54.160
<v Speaker 1>acting chair of the EEOC, and I would say the

0:08:54.240 --> 0:08:58.040
<v Speaker 1>other executive order on transgender employees that I'm sure we'll

0:08:58.040 --> 0:09:01.080
<v Speaker 1>get to in a minute, all poll appear to be

0:09:01.120 --> 0:09:04.720
<v Speaker 1>taking the position that in the employment context, where Title

0:09:04.800 --> 0:09:10.679
<v Speaker 1>seven governs and prohibits discrimination, a DEI program that supports

0:09:10.720 --> 0:09:14.200
<v Speaker 1>the advancement of certain employees of color, for example, would

0:09:14.320 --> 0:09:18.200
<v Speaker 1>violate Title seven. That is a possible way to read

0:09:18.240 --> 0:09:21.600
<v Speaker 1>all of these orders because there is a consistent reference

0:09:21.640 --> 0:09:24.560
<v Speaker 1>to DEI as being illegal in the employment context, and

0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:28.280
<v Speaker 1>the most relevant law in that context is Title seven, which,

0:09:28.280 --> 0:09:30.520
<v Speaker 1>of course the EEOC is tasked with enforcing.

0:09:31.320 --> 0:09:33.439
<v Speaker 3>What do you think will happen at the EEOC? Will

0:09:33.480 --> 0:09:36.240
<v Speaker 3>they change what they've been doing?

0:09:36.960 --> 0:09:38.319
<v Speaker 1>I believe very quickly.

0:09:38.600 --> 0:09:38.680
<v Speaker 3>So.

0:09:38.840 --> 0:09:41.720
<v Speaker 1>The acting Chair has already her name is Andrea Lucas,

0:09:42.320 --> 0:09:45.640
<v Speaker 1>and she has already issued a statement indicating what the

0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:49.720
<v Speaker 1>eeoc's priorities are, and the number one priority is rooting

0:09:49.800 --> 0:09:54.319
<v Speaker 1>out on lawful DEI motivated race and sex discrimination. The

0:09:54.360 --> 0:09:58.599
<v Speaker 1>next one is protecting American workers from an anti American

0:09:58.760 --> 0:10:04.040
<v Speaker 1>national origin discription. And that's an indication as to what

0:10:04.120 --> 0:10:07.800
<v Speaker 1>types of claims the EEOC, or at least the Acting

0:10:07.920 --> 0:10:11.760
<v Speaker 1>Chair might be interested in advancing, which very well could

0:10:11.760 --> 0:10:15.840
<v Speaker 1>be claims by non traditional groups, particularly white employees or

0:10:15.920 --> 0:10:19.520
<v Speaker 1>mail employees, arguing that they have been treated differently than

0:10:19.640 --> 0:10:23.280
<v Speaker 1>minority groups or have been harmed based on some DEI

0:10:23.320 --> 0:10:26.120
<v Speaker 1>program that existed in the past. I think, reading between

0:10:26.120 --> 0:10:29.160
<v Speaker 1>the lines, there's an invitation for non traditional groups that

0:10:29.480 --> 0:10:33.240
<v Speaker 1>previously would not have sought the eeoc's production to go

0:10:33.280 --> 0:10:37.160
<v Speaker 1>ahead and file claims with the EEOC so that these

0:10:37.240 --> 0:10:39.160
<v Speaker 1>employer practices can be investigated.

0:10:39.600 --> 0:10:43.240
<v Speaker 3>I mean, the order suggests that employers could face litigation

0:10:43.440 --> 0:10:47.120
<v Speaker 3>or regulatory action. Do you think the government will actually

0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:49.839
<v Speaker 3>sue businesses over DEI programs.

0:10:50.240 --> 0:10:53.720
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, So there's many charges that are filed with the EEOC,

0:10:53.960 --> 0:10:57.080
<v Speaker 1>and as I said, given the public statements, several of

0:10:57.120 --> 0:11:00.760
<v Speaker 1>those could be based directly on a DEI program. Others

0:11:00.840 --> 0:11:04.040
<v Speaker 1>could just be based on employee who's terminated and maybe

0:11:04.040 --> 0:11:06.800
<v Speaker 1>would not have sought the protection of the EEOC, particularly

0:11:06.800 --> 0:11:11.000
<v Speaker 1>because they're white or thirty six years old and very healthy,

0:11:11.360 --> 0:11:14.559
<v Speaker 1>but may feel emboldened to do so now and very

0:11:14.559 --> 0:11:17.360
<v Speaker 1>well maybe that that claim is advanced and brought forward

0:11:17.440 --> 0:11:21.000
<v Speaker 1>by the EEOC if, for example, that employee says that

0:11:21.040 --> 0:11:23.679
<v Speaker 1>they were treated differently with respect to the use of

0:11:23.720 --> 0:11:28.160
<v Speaker 1>a specific word or certain conduct than other employees in

0:11:28.240 --> 0:11:32.160
<v Speaker 1>their organization. So it could be exactly focused on a

0:11:32.200 --> 0:11:36.680
<v Speaker 1>DEI policy, or it could be an extrapolation based on

0:11:36.800 --> 0:11:39.719
<v Speaker 1>somebody who simply believes that they're way that they were

0:11:39.760 --> 0:11:44.280
<v Speaker 1>treated is unfair and previously probably would not have considered

0:11:44.280 --> 0:11:45.880
<v Speaker 1>the EEOC as the place to go.

0:11:46.280 --> 0:11:50.000
<v Speaker 3>Coming up the Executive Order on Transgender Americans. This is

0:11:50.040 --> 0:11:55.000
<v Speaker 3>bloomberg diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and in the raft

0:11:55.120 --> 0:11:59.480
<v Speaker 3>of executive orders. On day one, President Donald Trump called

0:11:59.520 --> 0:12:04.360
<v Speaker 3>for ana dei efforts in the federal government, including terminating

0:12:04.400 --> 0:12:10.319
<v Speaker 3>diversity programs and eliminating all related offices and positions. There

0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:13.640
<v Speaker 3>is also an order declaring a new policy that the

0:12:13.800 --> 0:12:18.960
<v Speaker 3>US will recognize only two sexes, male and female, signaling

0:12:19.080 --> 0:12:22.959
<v Speaker 3>a rollback of transgender protections. I've been talking to labor

0:12:22.960 --> 0:12:26.360
<v Speaker 3>and employment law expert niche Verma, a partner at Dorsey

0:12:26.360 --> 0:12:31.760
<v Speaker 3>and Whitney. So the order covers state and local bar associations,

0:12:31.920 --> 0:12:37.760
<v Speaker 3>and two major state bar associations, California and Massachusetts, have

0:12:37.920 --> 0:12:41.800
<v Speaker 3>pushed back. For example, California said in a statement, the

0:12:41.880 --> 0:12:45.079
<v Speaker 3>executive order will not affect its programs as long as

0:12:45.120 --> 0:12:48.920
<v Speaker 3>our work in this space involves illegal discrimination or preferences.

0:12:49.480 --> 0:12:52.160
<v Speaker 3>Massachusetts Bar said, I think there are better ways our

0:12:52.200 --> 0:12:55.839
<v Speaker 3>federal government could use its time than looking at bar associations.

0:12:56.120 --> 0:12:59.240
<v Speaker 3>For bar associations to say that, what does it indicate?

0:12:59.280 --> 0:13:02.560
<v Speaker 1>If anything, it's not too surprising because there have been

0:13:02.920 --> 0:13:06.320
<v Speaker 1>letters by several state attorneys general too, to law firms

0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:09.000
<v Speaker 1>that have had DEI programs. Right, So it seems like

0:13:09.040 --> 0:13:13.080
<v Speaker 1>there has been a focus on simultaneously. For several years,

0:13:13.080 --> 0:13:16.480
<v Speaker 1>there's been a focus on increasing diversity among the bar,

0:13:17.080 --> 0:13:20.640
<v Speaker 1>and then simultaneously a focus on those programs and whether

0:13:20.679 --> 0:13:23.160
<v Speaker 1>they might be illegal. And I think the state and

0:13:23.200 --> 0:13:27.920
<v Speaker 1>local bar associations have some significant grounds to challenge this

0:13:28.120 --> 0:13:32.040
<v Speaker 1>investigation by the federal government because they're not employers to

0:13:32.080 --> 0:13:35.520
<v Speaker 1>most of these people, so there's another relationship that they have,

0:13:36.200 --> 0:13:38.840
<v Speaker 1>and I think the government has to be sure they're

0:13:38.880 --> 0:13:43.040
<v Speaker 1>finding a federal statute that relates to discrimination, which is

0:13:43.040 --> 0:13:46.640
<v Speaker 1>what the government is calling the DEI program that applies.

0:13:46.960 --> 0:13:49.080
<v Speaker 1>And so I can understand why they feel somewhat confident

0:13:49.120 --> 0:13:49.720
<v Speaker 1>in their position.

0:13:50.480 --> 0:13:52.800
<v Speaker 3>Have we seen this sort of trend towards a slow

0:13:52.880 --> 0:13:57.040
<v Speaker 3>death of DEI programs because of the Supreme Court's decision

0:13:57.440 --> 0:14:00.000
<v Speaker 3>curtailing affirmative action programs in universe?

0:14:00.720 --> 0:14:03.920
<v Speaker 1>I think that's right, But I think that from the

0:14:03.920 --> 0:14:07.560
<v Speaker 1>strikedown of affirmative action in universities to today, there has

0:14:07.600 --> 0:14:11.120
<v Speaker 1>been a question as to whether the laws that apply

0:14:11.240 --> 0:14:16.960
<v Speaker 1>to the employment relationship prohibit DEI, because those are different

0:14:17.000 --> 0:14:20.400
<v Speaker 1>laws that apply to the funding of a university. And

0:14:20.880 --> 0:14:24.960
<v Speaker 1>the clearest way to argue that DEI violates the law

0:14:25.000 --> 0:14:27.800
<v Speaker 1>in an employment context is to say that it violates

0:14:27.840 --> 0:14:31.560
<v Speaker 1>Title seven, which is to say that the program discriminates

0:14:31.560 --> 0:14:36.480
<v Speaker 1>on the basis of race. And that is not a

0:14:36.560 --> 0:14:40.760
<v Speaker 1>conclusion that has been widely adopted, but it appears to

0:14:40.800 --> 0:14:45.840
<v Speaker 1>be the position stated multiple times by the federal government today.

0:14:46.440 --> 0:14:51.240
<v Speaker 3>Also, an executive order on Monday declares that the United

0:14:51.280 --> 0:14:55.480
<v Speaker 3>States will only recognize two sexes, male and female, and

0:14:55.560 --> 0:14:59.920
<v Speaker 3>states that these sexes are binary, biological, and not changeable.

0:15:00.560 --> 0:15:01.480
<v Speaker 3>What's the import of that?

0:15:02.080 --> 0:15:05.360
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, So that executive order, I'll say the name of it.

0:15:05.360 --> 0:15:10.080
<v Speaker 1>It is defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring

0:15:10.120 --> 0:15:14.960
<v Speaker 1>biological truth. To the federal government includes definitions that all

0:15:15.040 --> 0:15:18.800
<v Speaker 1>of the federal government is required to adopt and then

0:15:19.080 --> 0:15:23.120
<v Speaker 1>enforced with respect to its enforcement of federal laws. And

0:15:23.160 --> 0:15:25.560
<v Speaker 1>one of those is sex, defining it as only male

0:15:25.640 --> 0:15:32.160
<v Speaker 1>or female. And then simultaneously there's another definition of gender identity,

0:15:32.200 --> 0:15:35.160
<v Speaker 1>and it really truly defines gender identity as something that

0:15:35.280 --> 0:15:38.720
<v Speaker 1>is completely subjective and essentially not real in the world

0:15:38.880 --> 0:15:43.800
<v Speaker 1>and unrelated to sex. And the biggest question, looking just

0:15:43.840 --> 0:15:46.360
<v Speaker 1>at the text of the order is whether there's any

0:15:47.080 --> 0:15:50.600
<v Speaker 1>attempt to disturb the ruling of the Supreme Court decision

0:15:51.200 --> 0:15:55.280
<v Speaker 1>in twenty twenty Boss docsy Clayton County, which did find

0:15:55.440 --> 0:15:59.000
<v Speaker 1>that gender identity is included in the term sex under

0:15:59.040 --> 0:16:02.880
<v Speaker 1>Title seven for prohibited transgender discrimination.

0:16:03.400 --> 0:16:08.080
<v Speaker 3>What's the import of that executive order for transgender people?

0:16:08.560 --> 0:16:12.640
<v Speaker 1>I think there's two questions. One, is the EEOC Acting

0:16:12.720 --> 0:16:17.560
<v Speaker 1>Chair going to be pushing The logic of the answer

0:16:17.640 --> 0:16:21.480
<v Speaker 1>is yes, because in her statement she uses the exact

0:16:21.480 --> 0:16:27.600
<v Speaker 1>same language and specifically cites the order. But what is

0:16:27.680 --> 0:16:30.560
<v Speaker 1>the import and the import I don't know if it

0:16:30.600 --> 0:16:33.840
<v Speaker 1>means that the EEOC is going to be telling employers, yes,

0:16:34.040 --> 0:16:37.640
<v Speaker 1>you can fire employees for being transgender. It does not

0:16:37.760 --> 0:16:41.200
<v Speaker 1>seem like that's something that a federal enforcement agency should

0:16:41.200 --> 0:16:44.200
<v Speaker 1>be able to do because that does contradict a Supreme

0:16:44.240 --> 0:16:47.000
<v Speaker 1>Court decision, which is of course by another branch of

0:16:47.000 --> 0:16:51.440
<v Speaker 1>the government. However, another thing that the EEOC does is

0:16:51.440 --> 0:16:55.800
<v Speaker 1>issue guidance and guidance that's been in effect since April

0:16:55.840 --> 0:17:02.880
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty four has described things like misgendering intentionally a

0:17:02.960 --> 0:17:09.240
<v Speaker 1>transgender person or unnecessarily referring to their clothes, anatomy sexual

0:17:09.280 --> 0:17:15.080
<v Speaker 1>relationships as harassment based on gender identity, and the EEOC

0:17:15.280 --> 0:17:19.679
<v Speaker 1>has pursued it to Trump's executive order rescinded that. So

0:17:19.760 --> 0:17:24.080
<v Speaker 1>there is a clear and identifiable limitation of protections for

0:17:24.119 --> 0:17:27.560
<v Speaker 1>transgender employees based on this order. And I think the

0:17:27.800 --> 0:17:32.280
<v Speaker 1>next question is how much will the EEOC acting chair

0:17:32.840 --> 0:17:37.240
<v Speaker 1>skirt the boss stock decision around protection overall?

0:17:38.080 --> 0:17:42.200
<v Speaker 3>He rescinded a Biden administration provision that allowed transgender people

0:17:42.240 --> 0:17:46.240
<v Speaker 3>to serve in the military, but he didn't ban transgender

0:17:46.280 --> 0:17:49.160
<v Speaker 3>people from serving in the military. Do you think that's

0:17:49.359 --> 0:17:50.280
<v Speaker 3>the next step.

0:17:50.480 --> 0:17:52.879
<v Speaker 1>I think he has a lot more power with respect

0:17:52.880 --> 0:17:56.199
<v Speaker 1>to the military is than the private sector, and so

0:17:56.440 --> 0:17:58.560
<v Speaker 1>that's something that he could do, and I think the

0:17:58.680 --> 0:18:02.680
<v Speaker 1>challenges will be different than something that the EEOC does.

0:18:03.200 --> 0:18:07.760
<v Speaker 1>I think a EEOC position that it is okay to

0:18:07.880 --> 0:18:11.560
<v Speaker 1>fire someone because their transgender is the opposite of the

0:18:11.600 --> 0:18:15.800
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock. And I think the language

0:18:15.800 --> 0:18:19.280
<v Speaker 1>of the executive order does conflict with that ruling, and

0:18:19.720 --> 0:18:24.119
<v Speaker 1>we've already seen some indication of where the EEOC is

0:18:24.160 --> 0:18:27.800
<v Speaker 1>taking their guidance too, But we are also interested to

0:18:27.800 --> 0:18:29.239
<v Speaker 1>see how far they're going to take that.

0:18:29.800 --> 0:18:33.520
<v Speaker 3>This up ends so many things in the workplace. Will

0:18:33.560 --> 0:18:36.800
<v Speaker 3>we see a difference within one year, within a month?

0:18:37.240 --> 0:18:39.520
<v Speaker 3>How fast can these things be put into action?

0:18:40.160 --> 0:18:45.400
<v Speaker 1>I think given the risk and penalties for employers relating

0:18:45.400 --> 0:18:48.880
<v Speaker 1>to retaining DEI, even if there's not further action from

0:18:48.880 --> 0:18:51.280
<v Speaker 1>the federal government, there may be employers that are just

0:18:51.320 --> 0:18:54.040
<v Speaker 1>discussing with their legal departments what's worth it and what's not,

0:18:54.600 --> 0:18:57.800
<v Speaker 1>and they are immediately rolling back whatever they can to

0:18:57.920 --> 0:19:00.880
<v Speaker 1>just get out of the scrutiny of the federal government. Again,

0:19:00.880 --> 0:19:03.919
<v Speaker 1>we're talking about three executive orders on the same topic.

0:19:04.440 --> 0:19:09.399
<v Speaker 1>It's a vehement attack on DEI, and I think the

0:19:09.480 --> 0:19:15.520
<v Speaker 1>private sector understands that and potentially, like any company or organization,

0:19:15.960 --> 0:19:18.879
<v Speaker 1>is likely wanting to get back to their mission what

0:19:18.920 --> 0:19:22.679
<v Speaker 1>they do best, which means getting out of the eye

0:19:22.760 --> 0:19:25.240
<v Speaker 1>of the federal government on this issue. So it's very

0:19:25.359 --> 0:19:28.359
<v Speaker 1>likely that these changes are going to happen soon. I

0:19:28.400 --> 0:19:31.640
<v Speaker 1>think the other consideration relating to what you just mentioned

0:19:31.880 --> 0:19:35.720
<v Speaker 1>is that the idea that more people are going to

0:19:35.720 --> 0:19:40.960
<v Speaker 1>be using the EEOC for their grievances is a specific possibility,

0:19:41.280 --> 0:19:46.320
<v Speaker 1>given again that the reading between the lines of the

0:19:46.440 --> 0:19:50.440
<v Speaker 1>chair's position is that there's a bit of an invitation

0:19:50.600 --> 0:19:52.320
<v Speaker 1>that if you have a problem with your employer and

0:19:52.400 --> 0:19:58.200
<v Speaker 1>you haven't seen yourself as protected before, you're protected now. Simultaneously,

0:19:58.400 --> 0:20:02.320
<v Speaker 1>you will have all these employees who are seeing DEI

0:20:02.400 --> 0:20:05.560
<v Speaker 1>programs rolled back, are seeing their employers talk about race

0:20:05.600 --> 0:20:08.160
<v Speaker 1>and sex in a different way, may feel less supported,

0:20:08.240 --> 0:20:12.680
<v Speaker 1>less protected, and may react by bringing their own claims.

0:20:13.080 --> 0:20:15.840
<v Speaker 1>It doesn't appear that there's going to be less litigation

0:20:16.760 --> 0:20:19.040
<v Speaker 1>or less individual claims on this topic.

0:20:19.720 --> 0:20:23.480
<v Speaker 3>What are the finds like or the penalties for employers

0:20:23.520 --> 0:20:25.959
<v Speaker 3>who violate these DEI rules.

0:20:26.320 --> 0:20:29.119
<v Speaker 1>It's just an employer who's violated Title seven, either in

0:20:29.160 --> 0:20:32.440
<v Speaker 1>a private lawsuit or in an action brought by the EEOC,

0:20:33.080 --> 0:20:35.439
<v Speaker 1>then the penalties are going to be based on the

0:20:35.480 --> 0:20:38.880
<v Speaker 1>same concepts as any employment action, which is lost wages,

0:20:39.280 --> 0:20:43.760
<v Speaker 1>emotional distress, and punitive damages. If we are talking about

0:20:43.800 --> 0:20:48.879
<v Speaker 1>the federal contractor sphere, and you have a federal contractor

0:20:48.920 --> 0:20:53.000
<v Speaker 1>who may have had an affirmative action program as understandably

0:20:53.080 --> 0:20:55.520
<v Speaker 1>they would given them many years that that was required,

0:20:56.040 --> 0:20:59.560
<v Speaker 1>and continues to leave that in place and then seeks

0:20:59.560 --> 0:21:03.840
<v Speaker 1>a federal contract. That contractor could be found now under

0:21:03.880 --> 0:21:06.400
<v Speaker 1>the new order to be violating the False Claims Act,

0:21:06.760 --> 0:21:10.439
<v Speaker 1>be making a false claim to the government for fees

0:21:10.640 --> 0:21:16.200
<v Speaker 1>under this contract, because from the government's perspective, the contractor

0:21:16.359 --> 0:21:20.000
<v Speaker 1>has hid or lied about the fact that they are

0:21:20.040 --> 0:21:23.199
<v Speaker 1>indeed taking measures to have a diverse workforce, which is

0:21:23.480 --> 0:21:27.320
<v Speaker 1>strictly prohibited and monitored in the federal contractor scheme.

0:21:27.720 --> 0:21:31.800
<v Speaker 3>So nishe our employers completely confused. Are you getting calls

0:21:31.840 --> 0:21:34.879
<v Speaker 3>from people about you know, what's going on here? What

0:21:34.880 --> 0:21:36.359
<v Speaker 3>do I have to do? What can I do?

0:21:36.920 --> 0:21:41.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah? Absolutely, particularly in the federal contracting space. It's a

0:21:41.240 --> 0:21:44.639
<v Speaker 1>pretty big change, and unless you were really in the know,

0:21:45.200 --> 0:21:49.760
<v Speaker 1>not something that was expected for the entire executive order

0:21:50.200 --> 0:21:53.359
<v Speaker 1>addressing Affirmative Action that's been in place since nineteen sixty

0:21:53.359 --> 0:21:56.239
<v Speaker 1>five to not only go away, but be replaced with

0:21:56.280 --> 0:22:03.080
<v Speaker 1>this other onerous and risk executive order. Right, And I

0:22:03.200 --> 0:22:06.399
<v Speaker 1>do think that these companies want to be able to

0:22:06.600 --> 0:22:09.919
<v Speaker 1>go do what they do best without an overt amount

0:22:09.920 --> 0:22:13.679
<v Speaker 1>of scrutiny on these matters and so there's some questions

0:22:13.680 --> 0:22:16.000
<v Speaker 1>as to how best to move forward there. And then,

0:22:16.080 --> 0:22:20.280
<v Speaker 1>of course, with any private sector employer, what is the

0:22:20.320 --> 0:22:23.560
<v Speaker 1>EEOC going to be focusing on and is there any

0:22:23.600 --> 0:22:25.159
<v Speaker 1>reason that they'd be focusing on me?

0:22:25.560 --> 0:22:28.680
<v Speaker 3>These orders are game changers, that's for sure. Thanks so much,

0:22:28.760 --> 0:22:32.479
<v Speaker 3>nizsche That's Niche Rma, a labor and employment litigation partner

0:22:32.520 --> 0:22:35.880
<v Speaker 3>at Dorsey and Whitney. In other legal news today, the

0:22:35.920 --> 0:22:39.720
<v Speaker 3>first of Donald Trump's executive orders to be blocked by

0:22:39.720 --> 0:22:43.880
<v Speaker 3>a judge, at least temporarily. A Seattle federal judge has

0:22:43.960 --> 0:22:48.960
<v Speaker 3>temporarily blocked Trump from restricting who's eligible for automatic US

0:22:49.000 --> 0:22:52.720
<v Speaker 3>citizenship at birth, in an early legal setback for the

0:22:52.720 --> 0:22:58.520
<v Speaker 3>new administration's hardline immigration agenda. Judge John Kaufenor called Trump's

0:22:58.520 --> 0:23:05.040
<v Speaker 3>executive order ending birthright citizenship blatantly unconstitutional and question the

0:23:05.200 --> 0:23:09.919
<v Speaker 3>quality of lawyering within the administration. The order denies automatic

0:23:09.960 --> 0:23:13.720
<v Speaker 3>citizenship to US born children of immigrants who entered the

0:23:13.760 --> 0:23:19.040
<v Speaker 3>country illegally or have temporary legal status. Birthright citizenship is

0:23:19.080 --> 0:23:22.600
<v Speaker 3>a right enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the judge said,

0:23:23.040 --> 0:23:26.320
<v Speaker 3>it just boggles my mind that a lawyer could argue

0:23:26.320 --> 0:23:30.360
<v Speaker 3>that the order was constitutional. The judge stopped the administration

0:23:30.520 --> 0:23:33.720
<v Speaker 3>from taking any steps to carry out the order for

0:23:33.920 --> 0:23:38.199
<v Speaker 3>fourteen days. He'll next consider whether to sign a longer

0:23:38.320 --> 0:23:42.760
<v Speaker 3>term injunction. The administration is facing at least six lawsuits

0:23:42.800 --> 0:23:47.159
<v Speaker 3>over Trump's birthright citizenship order. Federal judges in Maryland and

0:23:47.200 --> 0:23:50.359
<v Speaker 3>New Hampshire have hearings scheduled in the coming weeks to

0:23:50.480 --> 0:23:53.640
<v Speaker 3>consider whether to also block the order from taking effect.

0:23:54.000 --> 0:23:57.600
<v Speaker 3>The Justice Department released a statement saying it will vigorously

0:23:57.680 --> 0:24:02.359
<v Speaker 3>defend Trump's order, which quote correctly interprets the fourteenth Amendment

0:24:02.440 --> 0:24:05.400
<v Speaker 3>of the US Constitution. And that's it for this edition

0:24:05.440 --> 0:24:08.080
<v Speaker 3>of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

0:24:08.080 --> 0:24:11.240
<v Speaker 3>the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You

0:24:11.280 --> 0:24:15.359
<v Speaker 3>can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

0:24:15.520 --> 0:24:19.800
<v Speaker 3>dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And remember

0:24:19.800 --> 0:24:22.760
<v Speaker 3>to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

0:24:22.800 --> 0:24:26.280
<v Speaker 3>ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're

0:24:26.359 --> 0:24:27.560
<v Speaker 3>listening to Bloomberg