“BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color),” “Minorities,” “Native,” “Tribal,” “Indigenous,” “Immigrant,” “LGBTQ,” “Homosexual,” and “Gay.”
These were the search terms utilized by the federal government to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in federal funding, all while using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to target those funds. In a stunning rebuke of such discriminatory practices, the District Court for the Southern District of New York found in American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald (ACLS), that the record established “beyond any dispute, that the Government used protected characteristics as criteria for identifying grants for termination. DOGE swept in race and ethnicity—including grants concerning Black, Asian, Latino, and Indigenous communities—as well as national origin and immigration status; religion and religious identity (including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim subjects); sex; and sexual orientation, as criteria for grant termination.” The federal government terminated grants involving African, Asian, and South American countries—as well as grants relating to Indigenous Americans and Jewish women—while retaining grants involving Western European subjects.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re taking a closer look at ChatGPT, exploring the opportunities and risks associated with this artificial intelligence (AI) technology, and providing valuable insights for employers who are looking to stay ahead of the curve:
ChatGPT is set to become the next big thing for employers and beyond. What potential issues should employers be aware of? Epstein Becker Green attorney Brian G. Cesaratto explains how critical it is for employers to think through the workplace-related risks.
Recent Updates
- U.S. Court of Appeals Decision Highlights Retaliation Risks During Employee Separations
- Fast Facts About the DOL Proposed Rule for Electronic Disclosures for ERISA Group Health Plans
- San Francisco Amends its Fair Chance Ordinance
- New Massachusetts Employer Notice Obligation
- Watch: Change Is Coming from the EEOC—but When? - Employment Law This Week