Trump administration questions DEI policies of top US law firms

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sent notices to 20 major law firms, including Perkins Coie LLP, Reed Smith LLP, A&O Shearman and others, as part of a sweeping review of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs by the Trump administration. .The notices sought detailed information about the firms’ hiring practices, diversity initiatives and employment policies, amid concerns that certain programs may involve unlawful disparate treatment based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics..The notice claims that this exercise is being undertaken to ensure compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.“I am concerned that …“diversity and inclusion” or other employment programs, policies, and practices may entail unlawful disparate treatment in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, or unlawful limiting, segregating, and classifying based—in whole or in part—on race, sex, or other protected characteristics, in violation of Title VII. I believe you can be of assistance in helping to identify all relevant information I might consider. As an initial request, please provide responses to the questions outlined below. Please also preserve all relevant records,” the notice read. .Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This includes not only overt discrimination, but also policies or practices that may have an impact on protected groups. While employers are permitted to promote diversity and inclusion, any initiative that explicitly favours or disadvantages individuals based on protected characteristics could be deemed unlawful under Title VII.The EEOC’s review comes at a time when DEI programs are under increased scrutiny following recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which curtailed the use of race-conscious admissions in higher education..The EEOC’s notices to the law firms focus on several key areas:Diversity fellowship programs: Many of the firms have established fellowship programs aimed at increasing representation of under-represented groups in the legal profession. The EEOC is examining whether these programs, which often provide financial incentives or accelerated hiring pathways, may violate Title VII by favoring candidates based on protected characteristics.SEO Law Fellowships under scrutiny: A significant portion of the EEOC’s inquiry focuses on the Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (SEO) Law Fellowship, a program that places incoming law students from underserved backgrounds in paid internships at top law firms. The SEO Law Fellowship has been praised for creating opportunities for students of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others from under-represented groups. The EEOC is investigating whether the program’s focus on specific demographics may run afoul of Title VII.The EEOC has requested detailed information from firms participating in the SEO Law Fellowship, including:Whether SEO Fellows were paid differently than other interns.Whether SEO Fellows were given preferential treatment in hiring for summer associate or full-time positions.Data on the race, sex, and compensation of SEO Fellows compared to other interns.Whether the firms provided additional stipends or bonuses to SEO Fellows.The SEO Law Fellowship website emphasises that it encourages applicants from “underserved backgrounds,” including racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and first-generation students. While the program states that “all are invited to apply,” the EEOC is examining whether its focus on specific groups may constitute unlawful disparate treatment.Affinity groups and resource networks: The EEOC is reviewing employee resource groups organised around race, gender, or other protected characteristics. While these groups are often intended to foster inclusion, the agency is assessing whether they may inadvertently lead to unlawful segregation or classification of employees.Hiring and promotion practices: The EEOC has requested data on whether the firms have set diversity goals or quotas for hiring, promotions, or partnership decisions. This includes examining whether race, sex, or participation in DEI initiatives played a role in employment decisions.Client diversity requirements: The EEOC is also investigating whether the firms have complied with client requests for diversity-related staffing on legal matters, including whether they disclosed the race or sex of employees assigned to specific cases..While many of the law firms received largely identical notices, the notices addressed to Reed Smith and Cooley referenced to specific DEI initiatives they had undertaken. The EEOC raised questions on Cooley’s 1L and 2L Diversity Fellowship Programs and Reed Smith’s Race Equity Action Plan (REAP), involve unlawful discrimination based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Cooley’s programs offer financial awards and summer associate positions to diverse candidates, while Reed Smith’s REAP sets specific racial goals, such as increasing black lawyers by 50% and boosting black leadership by 30%..The law firms receiving notices include some of the most prominent names in the legal industry.A & O ShearmanDebevoise & PlimptonCooleyFreshfields Bruckhaus DeringerGoodwin ProcterHogan LovellsKirkland & EllisLatham & WatkinsMcDermott Will & EmeryMilbankMorgan, Lewis & BockiusMorrison & FoersterPerkins CoieReed SmithRopes & GraySidley AustinSimpson Thacher & BartlettSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & FlomWhite & CaseWilmerHale.Many of these firms, such as Sidley Austin, White & Case, A&O Sherman and Hogan Lovells, have worked on capital market transactions in India. .These firms have been asked to submit their responses by April 15. .Read the notices