On March 19, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice issued guidance addressing unlawful discrimination related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) in the workplace. Although DEI is not defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it has recently come under significant scrutiny. This guidance was released two days after the EEOC sent correspondence to certain large law firms requesting information regarding DEI-related employment practices.
The guidance, entitled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” provides information to job applicants and employees on how to identify DEI-related discrimination in the workplace and how to exercise their rights under Title VII. Specifically, the guidance provides that employer-led DEI initiatives, policies, programs, and practices may be unlawful if an employer is taking an employment action “motivated––in whole or in part––by [an employee’s] race, sex, or other protected characteristic.” Some of the employment actions specified include hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, selection for interviews, and access to or exclusion from mentorship, training, networking, and fellowship opportunities.
The EEOC simultaneously created a question-and-answer website (“EEOC Q&A”) to assist employees, entitled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work.” Both the guidance and EEOC Q&A provide instructions on filing a charge with the EEOC. Below are some key considerations for employers in light of these developments:
1. Affinity Groups
The guidance provides that Employers cannot limit, segregate, or classify employees based on any protected characteristic in a way that deprives them of employment opportunities. This includes limiting membership in workplace groups (like employee resource groups or affinity groups) to certain protected groups, which could result in discriminatory practices. Employers must ensure that these groups do not, intentionally or unintentionally, exclude individuals based on any protected characteristic under Title VII. For example, mentorship limited to certain affinity groups could lead to discrimination if other employees are excluded based on their protected characteristics. Thus, given this guidance, employers may want to consider re-evaluating their affinity-based resource groups and mentorship programs to consider whether they are inclusive and accessible to all employees, regardless of their protected characteristics.
2. Hostile Work Environment Related to DEI Trainings
Further, per the guidance, discrimination resulting from DEI training programs could serve as the basis for a harassment claim. According to the EEOC Q&A, employees may be able to allege that DEI-related training created a “hostile work environment.” As such, employers should carefully review all DEI-related training to determine if it is discriminatory in its “content, application, or context” and consider providing training and programming geared toward workers of all backgrounds.
3. Retaliation Against Employees who Oppose DEI Trainings
In addition, retaliation against employees who oppose DEI training programs is expressly prohibited by the guidance, provided the employee provides a fact-specific basis for their belief that the training violates Title VII. An employee’s refusal to attend or participate in training they believe to be discriminatory in nature may constitute “protected activity.” Employers should not retaliate against employees who express concerns about the content of any DEI-related training, as such retaliation could lead to viable claims under Title VII.
4. Diversity as a “Business Necessity”
Finally, the guidance provides that Title VII protection applies to all employees––regardless of their race, sex, or any other protected characteristic. As such, employers cannot justify employment practices advancing diversity as required by “business necessity.” Client or customer preferences regarding diversity cannot be used as a valid defense to a Title VII claim, as such preferences tend to exclude employees based on a protected characteristic. In light of this guidance, employers would be wise to examine any client and customer diversity preferences to ensure they are not exposing themselves to liability.
Given that the EEOC and DOJ are placing a significant emphasis on investigating employers for potential DEI-related Title VII violations, employers should consider reviewing their current DEI programs, policies, and practices to evaluate their compliance with Title VII. This includes reassessing any committees, groups, or programs based on or around protected classes, regardless of whether they are open to all employees, to determine that there is no inadvertent exclusion. The KMK Labor and Employment Team is available to assist employers in navigating this changing landscape and answering any DEI-related questions.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2025 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
Alison practices in the firm’s Labor & Employment Group, where she assists clients in all stages of workplace disputes. Alison has extensive experience counseling clients regarding hiring and firing issues, disciplinary ...
- Associate
Kelzé Riley is an associate in the firm's Labor & Employment Group. Her practice includes a wide range of labor and employment matters.
Kelzé earned her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 2024. While in law ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Department of Justice
- NLRB
- Religion Discrimination
- Title VII
- Department of Labor
- Diversity
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Coronavirus
- NLRA
- Labor Law
- Artificial Intelligence
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Privacy
- FLSA
- Overtime Pay
- Federal Trade Commission
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- FMLA
- Arbitration
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Violence
- Medical Marijuana
- IRS
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ADAAA
- Whistleblower
- Unions
- United States Supreme Court
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- Environmental Law
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Telecommuting
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- EEOC & DOJ New Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination: What Does it Mean for Employers?
- EEOC Targets 20 Large Law Firms regarding DEI related Employment Practices
- Ohio Senate Bill 11: Key Provisions and Implications for Employers
- Shifting Burdens: Is McDonnell Douglas Past Its Prime?
- Uncertain Ground: The NLRB, EEOC, and the Fallout of Presidential Firings
- UPDATED: What’s Next for the Department of Labor? The Confirmation of Lori Chávez-DeRemer
- Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Where Things Stand in Response to Actions Taken by President Trump
- Recent Executive Orders’ Impact on the EEOC
- NLRB Acting General Counsel Rescinds Numerous Predecessor’s Memoranda
- Federal Court Overturns Expansion of Overtime Requirements