After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025

What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?

In January 2025, President Trump issued the “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-based Opportunity” executive order, which significantly impacts private employers, particularly those that implement diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This order aims to curtail employment practices that provide preferential treatment based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics, reinforcing a strict adherence to merit-based hiring and advancement.


For private employers, especially federal contractors and organizations with established DEI initiatives, understanding the legal implications of this order is essential to ensure compliance while mitigating potential liabilities.

 

Key Legal Implications for Private Employers

  • Revocation of affirmative-action mandates for federal contractors. The order revokes prior mandates, including Executive Order 11246, which required federal contractors to adopt affirmative-action programs to address historical disparities in hiring. The revocation effectively eliminates federal obligations for contractors to develop workforce diversity plans or set hiring goals based on demographic representation.
  • Regulatory scrutiny of employment practices. Federal agencies, particularly the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), have been directed to investigate employment policies that could be deemed discriminatory under the new legal framework. Employers must ensure that any DEI initiatives remain neutral and do not grant or deny opportunities based on race, gender, or other protected classifications.
  • Merit-based employment enforcement. The executive order underscores the importance of meritocracy, requiring employers to justify employment decisions strictly based on qualifications, experience, and performance. Organizations implementing hiring quotas, targeted recruitment efforts, or employee resource groups may need to re-evaluate these programs to avoid potential litigation risks.
  • Compliance audits and investigations. The attorney general is tasked with formulating an enforcement plan that includes identifying employers whose DEI initiatives may conflict with federal non-discrimination laws. Employers should anticipate increased oversight, potential audits, and legal challenges if their policies include race- or gender-conscious hiring, promotions, or training programs.

 

Compliance Strategies for Employers

Given the legal uncertainties surrounding this order, private employers must take proactive steps to avoid violations and potential legal repercussions.

  • Conduct an internal policy review. Employers should undertake a comprehensive audit of all DEI programs, training materials, hiring practices, and workplace policies. Any language or initiatives that suggest preferential treatment based on race, gender, or ethnicity should be reassessed to ensure alignment with the updated legal framework.
  • Emphasize equal opportunity and non-discrimination. To remain compliant, companies should reaffirm their commitment to equal opportunity without the use of race- or gender-based preferences. Employee training programs should be reviewed to ensure they focus on compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws rather than implicit bias or identity-based initiatives.
  • Monitor federal guidance and legal challenges. Since the implementation of this order may lead to litigation and policy revisions, employers should stay informed of further legal developments from the DOJ, EEOC, and other regulatory bodies. It is advisable to consult employment-law attorneys to navigate these changes effectively.
  • Prepare for increased scrutiny and potential investigations. Employers, particularly those with government contracts, should be prepared for potential audits and legal reviews. Documentation demonstrating that hiring and promotion decisions are based solely on qualifications and performance will be crucial in defending against any claims of discriminatory practices.

 

Conclusion

The repeal of affirmative-action mandates and the increased focus on merit-based employment and advancement signal a substantial shift in workplace compliance requirements for private employers. Organizations that have historically engaged in DEI initiatives must carefully reassess their programs to ensure they do not run afoul of federal regulations. While diversity efforts are not outright prohibited, any policies that confer advantages or disadvantages based on protected characteristics may expose employers to legal liability.


To mitigate risks, employers should prioritize objective hiring and promotion criteria, eliminate race- or gender-based preferences, and stay informed on regulatory updates. Consulting legal experts and conducting internal audits will be critical steps in ensuring compliance with this evolving legal landscape.


Krupa Kotecha is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.


Krupa Kotecha wrote this article which was featured in Businesswest. Click here to visit their website.

April 21, 2025
Friday April 18th: Amy Royal, Fred Royal, and Derek Brown attended the Springfield Thunderbirds playoff game! They enjoyed watching the Thunderbirds play the Charlotte Checkers from the Executive Perch.
April 18, 2025
Employee's Wage Act Claim Case Overview : In Turgut v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc., Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a company, Defendant, alleging violation of the Wage Act by not paying wages within six days of the pay period's end. Defendant argued that its employees fell under the exception that allowed seven days for payment; however that exception only applies to hourly workers that work all seven days of a work week. The plaintiff is looking to represent a class of employees that received W-2 wages in what he alleges was in an untimely manner. The case was originally filed in state court on February 20, 2025 but was moved to federal court. Reason for Treble Damages: Under Rueter v. City of Methuen, the seminal case regarding the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”), the proper measure of damages under the Wage Act is treble damages. Previously employees were only entitled to interest on the unpaid wages if the company paid before proceedings started. It kept noncompliance from being as costly as it is now. Currently any violation can be subjected to treble damages for the total amount of the alleged late payment. It’s expected that we will see more cases pick up by attorneys because the treble damages make it worthwhile for their clients as well as themselves, given this recent ruling. Judge's Ruling : The Judge ruled that the six-day deadline applies. The Judge stated that while the complaint didn’t make it clear if plaintiff is hourly or salary, plaintiff only worked five days a week, meaning that the seven-day exception did not apply as the Wage Act was written. Legal Implications Legislative History : The Wage Act provides different deadlines for an employee’s final pay based on the number of days worked in a week. This case also emphasizes that having salaried workers on staff does not fulfill the requirement of having employees work seven days a week. Significance of One Day : The judge emphasized that even a single day's delay in payment can significantly impact employees living paycheck to paycheck. What Employers need to know Make sure you’re aware of your employees’ pay cycle and make compliance a company priority. It’s more cost effective to pay a day or two earlier than it is to head to court over claims of violations. This ruling expands on the Reuter ruling by clarifying the Wage Act rules in relation to hourly employees. If an hourly employee resigns, ensure that automatic payment systems (as well as the employer’s own internal pay systems) are aligned with the requirements of this ruling. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.