The American First Legal Foundation and other organizations like it, have taken the position that all diversity, equity and inclusion programs are illegal since the Students for Fair Admissions Inc. decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. The groups have already filed actions against several companies for polices that include goals for the placement of people of color and women in leadership and leadership pipeline positions to match community demographics by a certain year; employee training and apprenticeship programs focused on underrepresented groups; and quantitative representation metrics for leadership incorporated into annual incentive compensation awards for senior leadership.
Author: Lynne Anne Anderson
Next Stage Considerations About the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Decision: How to Put the Warning Letter from the State Attorneys General in Context
As higher education institutions, state and local governments, private employers and federal contractors grapple with understanding the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199 (U.S. June 29, 2023), it is not surprising that elected officials — including 13 state attorneys general — have markedly different views about the philosophy and effects of affirmative action and other race-conscious policies. So, what should potentially affected organizations do in response to this legal uncertainty? We suggest taking a breath and bringing method to the madness.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates Race-Conscious Admissions: Key Considerations for Postsecondary Institutions, Employers and Others
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al., holding that race-conscious admissions programs used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina are constitutionally impermissible. Both public colleges and universities, and private institutions receiving federal funds, are prohibited from considering race in admissions decisions. As a result of the decision, institutions may also need to evaluate other areas in which educational services or benefits potentially take race into account, including but not limited to the provision of scholarships or grants. There may also be significant implications for employers’ voluntary affirmative action and DEI programs, as well as potential implications for mandatory affirmative action for government contractors, as a result of the decision.
Supreme Court Decides Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al.
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al., No. 21-707, holding that the admissions programs used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Illinois Department of Labor Publishes Final Rules Regarding Illinois Equal Pay Registration Certificates
The Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) recently published its final rules regarding Illinois Equal Pay Registration Certificates (EPRC). The final rules largely adopt the proposed rules issued last June, which was discussed here in a prior post. However, the rules include a few notable changes.
Updated Guidance Released for SB 1162 – California’s New 2023 Pay Data Reporting Requirement for Workers Provided by Third Parties
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) released amended FAQs providing guidance on compliance with the new pay data reporting requirements. PDR FAQs – 2022 Reporting Year | CRD (ca.gov) As previously reported here and here, Senate Bill 1162 amended Labor Code section 432.3 and Government Code section 12999 as part of California’s ongoing efforts to promote workplace pay transparency as a means to combat pay discrimination. Companies need to act now to be prepared to comply with the obligation to not only report data for their W-2 employees, but also the new obligation to compile and report data for workers supplied by staffing agencies and other third parties that are either working at, or assigned to, any California locations. This blog discusses the CRD guidance regarding this significant new development, together with takeaways for compliance.
What is the New Deadline to Submit Pay Data Reports under Senate Bill 1162?
The reporting deadline has been pushed back from March 31 to May 10, 2023. The FAQs have a link to the online portal and templates that employers can use to create their reports. Additional resources will continue to come online for employers.