How a new decision from the Supreme Court complicates the DEI landscape
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios
A Supreme Court decision that came down Wednesday could complicate the diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, landscape even further.
Why it matters: The court's decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis comes as DEI efforts inside companies, in government offices and at universities are under attack.
The big picture: It's a tricky situation. The decision will likely be good for workers who believe they've been discriminated against on the basis of sex or race.
- Yet it could also open the door to make it easier for anti-DEI activists to challenge programs that they view as discriminatory. And that could over the long-term affect workers benefitting from such programs.
Catchup fast: Police Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow filed a lawsuit under the federal civil rights law alleging she was transferred out of a job as a plainclothes officer into a worse role — she had to put on a uniform and work weekends, for example — so that a man could take her place.
- But because she didn't suffer a hit to her pay, lower courts said there was no significant harm to merit remedy from a court.
- The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that you only need to show some kind of harm.
The big picture: Some employment lawyers believe that this reasoning, that the harm needn't be significant, could make it easier for workers to sue employers over some classic diversity programs — like fellowships or mentorships that only accept certain ethnic groups or genders.
- "Anti DEI groups 'will see this as an opening' to launch new attacks on diversity programs," a lawyer at the Legal Defense Fund told Bloomberg. Still, she praised the ruling overall.
The bottom line: The DEI landscape was already an elaborate maze for companies and now it's gotten a little bit harder to navigate.
