Workforce Bulletin

On Friday, February 21, 2025, a federal judge issued a Preliminary Injunction in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, et al. v. Trump, blocking significant portions of two Executive Orders (EOs) issued by President Donald Trump. The decision, which will be appealed, creates more uncertainty for employers with programs that may fall under the broad umbrella of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) or “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility” (DEIA) in light of the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate DEI programs within federal agencies and impose restrictions on private sector DEI initiatives. For now, the court’s order blocks most – but not all – of the provisions in the two EOs.

Background

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland addressed a motion seeking relief from EO 14151 (“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which the court labeled “J20 Order”) and  EO 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” referred to by the court as the “J21 Order”). Epstein Becker Green has published several advisories explaining these EOs and how they may affect federal contractors and other federal funding recipients (see here and here) as well as other public and private employers (see here).

Both EOs were challenged by a group of plaintiffs that includes the City of Baltimore, the American Association of University Professors, and National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. In brief, the plaintiffs argued that:

Just hours after it became clear that Donald Trump would be returning to the White House, the majority Democratic National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) showed no signs of slowing down its efforts to implement the Biden Administration’s pro-labor agenda before January 20. In its latest decision the Board severely curtailed what types of statements employers can make to employees when pointing out the legal and practical effects of unionization.

On November 8, 2024, the NLRB issued a decision in Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks, 373 NLRB No. 135, which overturned long-standing case law Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB 377 (1985). Under Tri-Cast, the Board held that it was lawful for employers to accurately explain that a union’s certification as the collective bargaining representative of employees would change the relationship between the employer and its employees, holding that, “there is no threat, either explicit or implicit, in a statement which explains to employees that, when they select a union to represent them, the relationship that existed between the employees and employer will not be as before,” regardless of “the truth or falsity of the parties campaign statements.” Tri-Cast, 274 NLRB 377, 378 (quoting Midland National Life Insurance Co., 263 NLRB 127, 133 (1982)).