December 4, 2021

Volume XI, Number 338


December 03, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 02, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 01, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Civil Rights Groups File Challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order on Diversity Trainings

On October 29, 2020, civil rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s recent Executive Order on “Combatting Race and Sex Stereotyping” (the “Order”).  The Complaint alleges that the Order violates the First and Fifth Amendments by infringing on the Constitution’s guarantees of Free Speech, Equal Protection, and Due Process.  The Complaint also alleges that the Order is unconstitutionally vague and should be declared unlawful and invalid.

More Detail:

The Order, issued on September 22, requires new contracts entered into with the federal government to include a clause prohibiting federal contractors from including certain concepts in diversity and awareness trainings – including certain concepts that are common in unconscious bias and societal privilege trainings.  The lawsuit was filed by the NACCP Legal Defense Fund on behalf of the National Urban League (“NUL”) and the National Fair Housing Alliance (“NFHA”), and names President Trump; Secretary of Labor, Eugene Scalia; and the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”), as defendants.  The Complaint was filed on behalf of both the named parties and on behalf of other entities affected by the Order.

According to the Complaint, the Order is an attack on free speech and “prohibits laudable and necessary efforts by Plaintiffs who want to counteract the effects of systemic discrimination and biases in the workplace.”  Ultimately, the Complaint argues, the Order “unconstitutionally forces Plaintiffs to choose between censoring speech on these important issues or forfeiting any opportunity to enter into a federal contract for the provision of goods or services or to receive federal funds as a grant recipient.”

Further, the Plaintiffs allege that the terms of the Order are unclear and often left undefined.  This brings unpredictability and uncertainty, as there “is no objective way to determine which activities are permitted and which are prohibited.”  This also invites the possibility of “selective enforcement.”  Plaintiffs claim the Order is an attempt to “censor and chill” discussions surrounding equality and inclusion—speech that is “at the core of the First Amendment’s protections.”

Plaintiffs, among other relief, seek a declaration that the Order is unlawful and invalid and a permanent injunction enjoining its enforcement.

We will continue to monitor developments with this lawsuit and advise our readers of further developments.

© 2021 Proskauer Rose LLP. National Law Review, Volume X, Number 308

About this Author

Guy Brenner, Labor Attorney, Proskauer Rose, arbitration proceedings Lawyer

Guy Brenner is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Group. He has extensive experience representing employers in both single-plaintiff and class action matters, as well as in arbitration proceedings. He also regularly assists federal government contractors with the many special employment-related compliance challenges they face.

Guy represents employers in all aspects of employment and labor litigation and counseling, with an emphasis on non-compete and trade secrets issues,...

Law Clerk

Abigail Rosenblum is a law clerk in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group.

Abigail earned her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she also completed a certificate program in business management at The Wharton School and served as a Senior Editor of the Journal of International Law. During law school, she interned for the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Prior to law school, Abigail worked in management at an industrial supply company,...