Last week, the most recent Blue Origin flight went to space. Unlike past voyages, all passengers were female, including a couple of celebrities. Like with anything these days, some hailed it as progress while others criticized it as a publicity stunt.
What I find interesting as a labor employment attorney is the publicity and promotion of an all-female space mission against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s recent policy shifts concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in both the public and private sectors. By way of background, many employers began implementing DEI programs to increase innovation, improve decision-making, and increase financial performance and recruitment and retention of the best talent. While there is no standard definition, these programs generally refer to the affirmative steps taken by companies to ensure equal opportunity for all, to address disparities, to combat discrimination, and to create a more welcoming environment for all employees (and candidates for employment). Companies often cite improved morale, innovation, and profitability as benefits of these efforts. At the same time, DEI initiatives have faced criticism, with some arguing that they may unintentionally prioritize demographic factors over individual merit.
For those who have tuned out completely to politics since January 20, President Trump has issued several executive orders targeting what the administration describes as “illegal DEI,” seeking to eliminate such polices from federal agencies and the military and seeking to influence private sector practices. During his State of the Union speech, the president pronounced, “We have ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government and, indeed, the private sector and our military.” Continuing, he said, “And our country will be woke no longer.” While several large employers have re-evaluated or discontinued their DEI programs, others have reiterated support for and expanded their DEI programs and initiatives. Additionally, several private and public universities, including my alma mater, the University of Michigan, have closed their DEI offices, citing potential implications for federal funding. While other institutions, including Harvard, the United States’ oldest university, has rejected the administration’s demands to dismantle diversity programming. Even some of the world’s largest law firms have come under scrutiny, with the EEOC now looking closely at whether diversity programs are aligned with current federal standards. A few firms have already entered into settlement agreements to retain their government access, reaffirming their commitment to lawful, merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention practices. Meanwhile, other firms have continued to prioritize building a diverse workforce through the lawful, inclusive practices aligned with current regulatory guidance.
What does this mean for employers? It’s important to be familiar with how the EEOC is interpreting and enforcing the current policy. Although lawsuits have yet to be adjudicated, guidance from the EEOC suggests that employers should provide “training and mentoring that provides workers of all backgrounds the opportunity, skill, experience, and information necessary to perform well, and to ascend to upper-level jobs.” Employers also should ensure that “employees of all backgrounds . . . have equal access to workplace networks.”
Whether organizations view this policy shift as an opportunity to emphasize merit-based practices or as a challenge to achieving workforce diversity, now is a prudent time to review hiring, promotion, retention, and compensation policies. Adapting to evolving regulatory expectations will be an ongoing critical component of any employer’s workforce strategy. With the possibility of ever-changing priorities with each new administration, organizations must remain agile and proactive in aligning their practices with both current and anticipated regulatory landscapes and the law.
