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
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.