Client Alerts & Insights
New Lawsuits Filed Over DEI Hiring Programs in the Wake of SCOTUS Harvard College Decision
August 25, 2023
Authored By:
As we speculated in our recent alert regarding the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (link here), American Alliance for Equal Rights filed two lawsuits in federal courts in Dallas and Miami alleging that law firm fellowships dedicated to minority applicants amount to unlawful race discrimination. The complaints, filed against Perkins Coie LLP and Morrison Foerster LLP, request the courts to declare the programs to be in violation of Section 1981 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, which protects equal rights, and to bar the firms from considering race as a factor when selecting fellows.
These new cases follow many legal expert opinions that the Harvard College case, while only addressing college admissions, would lead to legal challenges regarding hiring. Just a few months later, those challenges have begun.
The fellowships at issue are similar and subject to similar claims. The case in Texas targets a fellowship program for law students that prohibits applicants that do not identify as students of color, members of the LGBTQ community, or people with disabilities. The Florida case targets a similar fellowship program that prohibits applicants that do not belong to a historically underrepresented group in the legal profession, including students of color, those who identify as LGBTQ, and those with disabilities.
In both cases, the plaintiffs argue that such selective criteria was always illegal under Section 1981 even before Harvard College, and that the June ruling simply reinforces the principle that such criteria to weed out applicants on the basis of race is illegal.
In the wake of Harvard College, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a statement that the decision did not address employer efforts and such programs remained lawful. Regardless of the EEOC’s assertion, these new complaints show that the legal analysis of Harvard College’s impact was prophetic.
Employers should be aware that similar programs may be subject to additional scrutiny and potential ripe for challenges. While there are many hiring methods focused on enhancing diversity in the workplace that have been upheld by various federal courts, programs with such explicit prohibitions based on race will continue to garner attention in the wake of Harvard College.
For more information, contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Adam Primm at aprimm@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4451.
Latest News
Ohio Board of Professional Conduct Issues Ohio Ethics Guide on Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers
Dispensary tip practices—especially involving hybrid roles like “Leads” or Agents-in-Charge—are increasingly being scrutinized as unlawful as a surge in wage-and-hour lawsuits claim that managers or employees with supervisory duties are improperly sharing in tips meant for front-line staff.
Connecticut Broadens Data Privacy Act Requirements Effective July 1, 2026
Key Takeaways Revised Applicability Scope and Exemptions Effective July 1, 2026, the CTDPA’s existing applicability thresholds are reduced, resulting in …
SCOTUS Extends FAA Exemption to Last-Mile Drivers: What the Flowers Foods decision means for motor carriers and transportation providers
On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, expanding reach of the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) Section 1 exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. The Court held that a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for Section 1’s exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do. This decision has significant implications for motor carriers and transportation providers that rely on arbitration agreements to resolve disputes with independent contractors and employee drivers.
Beyond the Buzzwords: State AGs Put Enforcement Muscle Behind Algorithmic Pricing and Age Verification Crackdowns
State AGs are doubling down—across party lines—on consumer protection, with a sharp focus on vulnerable groups and increased scrutiny of algorithmic pricing models and online age verification practices.