Thursday, July 27, 2023: OFCCP Updated Its Affirmative Action FAQ Section to Address Recent SCOTUS University Admissions Case Decisions
OFCCP updated its Affirmative Action FAQ section at Question 6 (the last question in the section) to address the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (No. 20-1199; June 29, 2023). That question reads:
“Are the affirmative action obligations OFCCP enforces similar to the affirmative action steps taken by some educational institutions to increase the racial diversity of their student bodies?”
On Thursday, OFCCP updated its existing answer (set out below for comparison) to now read as follows:
“No. OFCCP enforces nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations to ensure equal opportunity in the federal contractor workforce, while some post-secondary educational institutions have implemented a wholly distinct concept of affirmative action that permitted the use of race to be weighed as one factor among many in admissions processes. Further, the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions applies only to higher education admissions programs and does not address the employment context. See Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199, slip op. at 2-5, 23-30 (U.S. June 29, 2023). There continue to be lawful and appropriate ways to foster equitable and inclusive work environments and recruit qualified workers of all backgrounds. OFCCP’s affirmative action requirements enable employers to reduce the risk of discrimination in their workforces and recruit and retain diverse talent.”
Previously, OFCCP had answered that question as follows:
“No. While OFCCP seeks to increase the diversity of the federal contractor workforce through the variety of affirmative action obligations described above, the obligations it enforces are wholly distinct from the concept of affirmative action as implemented by some post-secondary educational institutions in their admissions processes. In contrast to the affirmative action implemented by many post-secondary institutions, OFCCP does not permit the use of race to be weighed as one factor among many in an individual’s application when rendering hiring, employment, or personnel decisions, as racial preferences of any kind are prohibited under the authorities administered by OFCCP. See 41 CFR 60-1.4(a), 60-300.5(a) and 60-741.5(a). OFCCP, therefore, does not permit the use of race as a factor in contractors’ employment practices to achieve diversity in the workforce, either by using race as one factor among many to achieve a “critical mass” of representation for underrepresented minorities or through direct numerical quotas or set-asides. See, e.g., Fisher v. University of Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2198, 2214-15 (2016); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330-31 (2003); Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 324 (1978). OFCCP’s affirmative action regulations expressly forbid the use of quotas or set asides, provide no legal justification for a contractor to extend preferences on the basis of a protected status, and do not supersede merit selection principles. See 41 CFR 2.16(e).”
As WIR readers are likely aware, John Fox has frequently made the above points (and expanded on them) in multiple Bonus Blogs and other stories, including here and here. Moreover, readers should not miss John’s Four-Part Series discussing the implications for employers of the SCOTUS case decision resolving the Harvard and UNC cases.
- PART I, discussing the “Pipeline Problem” and suggested “Life Preserver” Solutions, is here.
- PART II, discussing ”Goals Are Not Unlawful Quotas,” is here.
- PART III, discussing “Doing Right the Right Way: The Renewed Commitment To Hiring African Americans Is Not A ‘Greenlight’ to Unlawfully Discriminate Against Other Protected Groups,” is here.
- PART IV, discussing “How to Lawfully Engage in Race-Based Employment Decisions If You Choose to Do So,” is included with today’s WIR edition.