Insights

Congress has not passed crucial funding bills for the start of Fiscal Year 2026.  If Congress fails to act by September 30, the government may be forced to shut down for lack of funding.  In anticipation of that possibility, agencies government-wide are preparing for a shutdown, and contractors and companies that work with the government should do so as well.  Our team is ready and available to help advise companies through the shutdown process.

On July 29, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued new guidance to all federal agencies entitled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” (“Guidance”). The Guidance purports to “clarif[y] the application of federal antidiscrimination laws to programs or initiatives that may involve discriminatory practices, including those labeled as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (‘DEI’) programs.” It declares that “[e]ntities receiving federal funds . . . must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics,” and identifies a series of “‘Best Practices’ as non-binding suggestions to help entities comply with federal antidiscrimination laws and avoid legal pitfalls.” The Guidance is the most comprehensive articulation of the Administration’s view of what constitutes unlawful DEI released since President Trump’s Executive Order, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, issued on January 21, 2025.

On July 11, 2025, the Department of Education issued a new interpretive rule entitled “Clarification of Federal Public Benefits under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.” The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) generally limits “eligibility for ‘federal public benefits’ to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and certain categories of qualified aliens.” The Department concluded that certain postsecondary education programs, “including adult education programs authorized under Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, [and] postsecondary career and technical education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006,” constitute “Federal public benefits under the PRWORA and thus are subject to PRWORA’s citizenship verification requirements.”

Underscoring the Administration’s intention to eradicate DEI preferences and mandates, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched a new Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (Initiative) to be co-led by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and Fraud Section. In response, Crowell launched its own DEI and Civil Fraud Initiative to support clients in managing the heightened risks associated with this new enforcement landscape.

On May 19, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a Memorandum creating the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative that will “utilize the False Claims Act to investigate and . . . pursue claims against any recipient of federal funds that knowingly violates federal civil rights laws.” According to the Memorandum, though racial discrimination has “always been illegal,” the Administration posits that “many corporations and schools continue to adhere to racist policies and preferences—albeit camouflaged with cosmetic changes that disguise their discriminatory nature.” In an effort to prevent federal funds from being used in connection with or support of these purportedly racist policies and preferences, the Initiative will wield the power of the False Claims Act, the government’s most powerful tool to fight fraud, waste, and abuse.

The classification of “independent contractors versus employees” – a political football that has undergone many iterations as the White House switched between political parties – has again changed hands. The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has now introduced new guidance, consistent with earlier Republican iterations, while rejecting the 2024 Democratic formulation. It remains to be seen whether the courts will give DOL much deference in this area.

On April 23, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, declaring it the policy of the United States “to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.” The order reasons that “disparate impact liability all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability.”

Late on Friday, a federal judge in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction pausing certain elements of the Trump Administration’s two recent executive orders (“EOs”) addressing “illegal DEI programs.” The two EOs, Exec. Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (the “J20 Order”) and Exec. Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (“J21 Order”), contain a number of provisions that, among other things, direct the federal government to dismantle “illegal DEI programs” within federal agencies and federal contractors. Please refer to our prior alert on these EOs for a full breakdown of the provisions in each.

The first day of the Trump Administration included the issuance of 26 executive orders(“EOs”), the most in modern presidential history. Among these EOs, President Trump signed the Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government Executive Order (the “EO” or “Order”). While focused on federal policy, the Order has broad implications for private sector employers.

Late on the night of January 21, 2025, President Trump signed the “Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” Executive Order (the “EO”). This EO, like a number of the executive orders issued on his first day in office, took aim at Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) programs by, among other things, broadly directing executive agencies and departments to terminate all “discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements;” curtailing the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP) operational authority and directing agencies to scrutinize the DEI practices of private sector employers. Additionally, this language raises questions about the future and status of certain programs, preferences, and set-aside procurements administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and other agencies. 

Following a multi-million-dollar ruling against it by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), nursing home operator Care One, LLC, is now challenging the authority of NLRB-appointed Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) on constitutional grounds before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit’s line of questioning during the November 12, 2024, oral argument revealed the Court’s apparent skepticism towards Care One’s challenges, creating the prospect of a circuit court split on key issues that are likely to make their way to the Supreme Court. Care One’s arguments follow the trend over the past several years of employers increasingly questioning the authority of ALJs to adjudicate their labor and employment claims before administrative agencies.

On October 29, 2024, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) published a notice in the Federal Register that it received two requests under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) for 2021 Type 2 EEO-1 Reports filed by federal contractors.  The two requests came from the University of Utah and a non-profit organization named “As You Sow.”  The OFCCP notified federal contractors that the information might be protected from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4, which protects disclosure of confidential commercial information, and requested that any entities that filed these reports and object to their disclosure submit objections by December 9, 2024.  Objectors are strongly encouraged to use the OFCCP portal.  Alternatively, contractors may also submit written objections via email at OFCCPSubmitterResponse@dol.gov, or by mail. 

On Friday, October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in an appeal from the Sixth Circuit decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a Title VII case involving claims of reverse sexual orientation discrimination.  Plaintiff Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleges that she was demoted and replaced by a gay man and was also denied a promotion in favor of a gay woman because of her sexual orientation.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer-defendant, holding that—to establish a prima-facie case under Title VII as a member of the majority—in addition to the “usual” showing Plaintiff was required to make an additional showing of “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” 87 F.4th 822, 825 (6th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). The Court observed that such a showing is typically made with evidence that the minority group (here, gay people) made the challenged employment decision or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group—neither of which Plaintiff satisfied.

Effective January 1, 2026, H.B. 3773 amends Article 5, Section 2 of the Illinois Human Rights Act to explicitly prohibit employers from using artificial intelligence (“AI”) for a broad swath of employment decisions, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of employment, if such use has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of a protected class.  The amendment also prohibits employers from using zip code as a proxy for protected classes.  H.B. 3773 further provides that employers will be required to provide notice to employees prior to using AI for such employment-related purposes.  The law applies to any employers employing one or more employees within Illinois during 20 or more calendar weeks during the calendar year. 

On June 13, 2024, The Supreme Court ruled in Starbucks v. McKinney that the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) must meet the same four-part test that other litigants must satisfy in order to obtain a preliminary injunction. This holding resolves a split amongst the circuit courts, some of which have applied a “less exacting” two-factor test to preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

On June 3rd, 2024, in a 2-1 ruling, the 11thCircuit U.S. Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction against Fearless Fund (“Fearless”), enjoining the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest, a privately-funded grant competition open only to businesses owned by black women.  In another victory for the American Alliance for Equal Rights (“Alliance”) and Edward Blum, the legal strategist behind the Supreme Court’s recent rulings against college race-based admissions, the 11thCircuit held that the Alliance had standing to sue on behalf of three pseudonymously named business owners who were “ready and able” to enter the Contest but “were excluded from the opportunity to compete . . . solely on account of the color of their skin.”  The Court determined that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in the lawsuit, finding that privately funded businesses like Fearless can violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981, originally enacted as Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, through contract-based programs restricted to persons of color.  

On May 17, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed S.B. 24-205, Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence, the first state law in the country to regulate employers’ use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions.  This law regulates both companies that develop and companies that deploy “high-risk” artificial intelligence systems (“AI systems”).  In particular, the law sets forth a set of provisions designed to ensure that developers and deployers use “reasonable care” to protect consumers from any “known or reasonably foreseeable risks to algorithmic discrimination” arising from the use of the AI system.  The law then creates a rebuttable presumption, for both deployers and developers, that reasonable care was used if they meet specific requirements and disclose key information about high-risk AI systems.  This law will be enforced by the Colorado Attorney General, and a violation of the law constitutes an unfair trade practice.  The law becomes effective on February 1, 2026.

Now more than ever, federal contractors find themselves at the intersection of innovation and regulation, particularly in the realm of Artificial Intelligence (AI).  AI is now incorporated into a broad range of business systems, including those with the potential to inform contractor employment decisions.  For that reason, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has issued new guidance entitled “Artificial Intelligence and Equal Employment Opportunity for Federal Contractors” (the “AI Guide”).  OFCCP issued the AI Guide in accordance with President Biden’s Executive Order 14110 (regarding the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence”), which we reported on here.  The AI Guide provides answers to commonly asked questions about the use of AI in the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) context.  The AI Guide also offers “Promising Practices,” which highlight a number of important considerations for federal contractors.  Focusing on federal contractors’ obligations and attendant risks when utilizing AI to assist in employment-related decisions, the AI Guide also provides recommendations for ensuring compliance with EEO requirements while harnessing the efficiencies of AI.

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “the Agency”) voted 3-2 along partisan lines in a special public meeting to adopt the “Non-Compete Clause Rule” (the “Final Rule”), which will prohibit most employee non-competes with retroactive effect, except existing non-compete provisions of “senior executives.”  The Final Rule will also ban future non-compete agreements, including for senior executives, with limited exceptions.  The rule will not become effective until 120 days after publication in the Federal Register, and covered employers will be required to comply with the Final Rule by that effective date, which could come as early as August this year.  By the FTC’s own estimate, this ban could affect up to one-in-five American workers.

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm.