After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025

What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?

In January 2025, President Trump issued the “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-based Opportunity” executive order, which significantly impacts private employers, particularly those that implement diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This order aims to curtail employment practices that provide preferential treatment based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics, reinforcing a strict adherence to merit-based hiring and advancement.


For private employers, especially federal contractors and organizations with established DEI initiatives, understanding the legal implications of this order is essential to ensure compliance while mitigating potential liabilities.

 

Key Legal Implications for Private Employers

  • Revocation of affirmative-action mandates for federal contractors. The order revokes prior mandates, including Executive Order 11246, which required federal contractors to adopt affirmative-action programs to address historical disparities in hiring. The revocation effectively eliminates federal obligations for contractors to develop workforce diversity plans or set hiring goals based on demographic representation.
  • Regulatory scrutiny of employment practices. Federal agencies, particularly the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), have been directed to investigate employment policies that could be deemed discriminatory under the new legal framework. Employers must ensure that any DEI initiatives remain neutral and do not grant or deny opportunities based on race, gender, or other protected classifications.
  • Merit-based employment enforcement. The executive order underscores the importance of meritocracy, requiring employers to justify employment decisions strictly based on qualifications, experience, and performance. Organizations implementing hiring quotas, targeted recruitment efforts, or employee resource groups may need to re-evaluate these programs to avoid potential litigation risks.
  • Compliance audits and investigations. The attorney general is tasked with formulating an enforcement plan that includes identifying employers whose DEI initiatives may conflict with federal non-discrimination laws. Employers should anticipate increased oversight, potential audits, and legal challenges if their policies include race- or gender-conscious hiring, promotions, or training programs.

 

Compliance Strategies for Employers

Given the legal uncertainties surrounding this order, private employers must take proactive steps to avoid violations and potential legal repercussions.

  • Conduct an internal policy review. Employers should undertake a comprehensive audit of all DEI programs, training materials, hiring practices, and workplace policies. Any language or initiatives that suggest preferential treatment based on race, gender, or ethnicity should be reassessed to ensure alignment with the updated legal framework.
  • Emphasize equal opportunity and non-discrimination. To remain compliant, companies should reaffirm their commitment to equal opportunity without the use of race- or gender-based preferences. Employee training programs should be reviewed to ensure they focus on compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws rather than implicit bias or identity-based initiatives.
  • Monitor federal guidance and legal challenges. Since the implementation of this order may lead to litigation and policy revisions, employers should stay informed of further legal developments from the DOJ, EEOC, and other regulatory bodies. It is advisable to consult employment-law attorneys to navigate these changes effectively.
  • Prepare for increased scrutiny and potential investigations. Employers, particularly those with government contracts, should be prepared for potential audits and legal reviews. Documentation demonstrating that hiring and promotion decisions are based solely on qualifications and performance will be crucial in defending against any claims of discriminatory practices.

 

Conclusion

The repeal of affirmative-action mandates and the increased focus on merit-based employment and advancement signal a substantial shift in workplace compliance requirements for private employers. Organizations that have historically engaged in DEI initiatives must carefully reassess their programs to ensure they do not run afoul of federal regulations. While diversity efforts are not outright prohibited, any policies that confer advantages or disadvantages based on protected characteristics may expose employers to legal liability.


To mitigate risks, employers should prioritize objective hiring and promotion criteria, eliminate race- or gender-based preferences, and stay informed on regulatory updates. Consulting legal experts and conducting internal audits will be critical steps in ensuring compliance with this evolving legal landscape.


Krupa Kotecha is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.


Krupa Kotecha wrote this article which was featured in Businesswest. Click here to visit their website.

By The Royal Law Firm August 19, 2025
Employers regularly wonder: “Can I fire someone for that?” You might assume the answer is simple, especially in an at-will state like Massachusetts. But the reality is more complex. Missteps can land your business in court. Here’s how to avoid them and keep your company focused on growth, not litigation. Myth: “At-Will Means Any Reason Goes” At-will employment allows termination without contractual cause. Yet anti-discrimination laws and retaliation protections still apply. Even a valid reason, like poor performance, becomes risky if the employee recently complained about harassment, requested an accommodation, or reported a safety issue. Terminating soon after a complaint invites legal trouble. For example, consider firing Sarah for repeated tardiness. But what if she reported sexual harassment a few weeks earlier? Timing alone can create exposure. Document performance issues as they arise. Also, check if the employee recently returned from Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) or Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML). A Springfield auto repair shop faced a claim after firing a worker the day after he returned from PFML to care for his newborn. The company blamed tardiness, but the timing triggered months of legal headaches. Myth: “No Documentation Needed” Some employers assume that no paperwork is necessary under at-will rules. That approach creates unnecessary risk. Without records, even lawful firings appear questionable. Weak evidence damages credibility. Imagine Tom, a low performer who never received formal feedback. If you fire him after years of positive reviews, expect scrutiny. Always provide timely written warnings and accurate performance evaluations. Keep emails, attendance records, and coaching notes. Would your records persuade a jury that the termination was justified? Myth: “We Treated Everyone Fairly” Fair treatment requires consistency. If one employee is fired and another is only warned for the same violation, questions follow. Consider two salespeople, Mike and Jose, both caught inflating sales numbers. Mike receives a warning. Jose gets fired. If Jose claims racial bias, inconsistent discipline strengthens his argument. Review prior disciplinary decisions. Can you show a clear record of equal treatment? Myth: “We Can Share the Reason Widely” Managers sometimes explain a termination too broadly, believing transparency protects the company. In reality, public disclosure creates legal risk. An employee fired for theft sued his employer after leadership announced it to the entire staff. Even truthful statements, shared excessively or with ill will, can spark defamation claims. A local example: a Chicopee retailer emailed all employees naming a worker fired for alleged cash shortages. That email became Exhibit A in court. Limit disclosure to those who truly need to know. Avoiding Retaliation Claims Retaliation is the most common EEOC claim. Firing someone after they complain about discrimination, request leave, or raise pay concerns often leads to lawsuits. Subtle actions can count too—cutting hours, assigning undesirable shifts, or excluding them from meetings. Did Lisa report a wage issue last week? If she now gets the worst shifts, her attorney will call it punishment. Train managers to pause and ask: “Does this look like payback?” In one Springfield restaurant, a server who complained about tips was fired days later for “attitude.” The MCAD viewed the timing as retaliation, and the case settled quickly. Managing the Termination Meeting Professionally How you fire someone matters. Keep the meeting short and calm. Speak plainly. Avoid debate. Bring a neutral witness, usually HR. Disable system access and collect company property immediately. For remote workers, coordinate IT to end access during the call. Have you prepared your team to stay composed when an employee gets angry or upset? A concise, professional exit reduces emotion and litigation risk. Reducing Risks Before They Occur You can prevent most legal problems with proactive steps. Train managers to document consistently. Encourage employees to raise concerns early, and respond appropriately when they do. Also, follow Massachusetts requirements: final wages and accrued vacation must be paid promptly, sometimes the same day. Missing or delaying a payment can trigger penalties. Review whether your managers apply standards uniformly. Track disciplinary trends by department or supervisor. In one Holyoke warehouse, inconsistent discipline across shifts led to multiple claims that could have been avoided with routine audits. Quick Pre-Termination Checklist Document the issue in writing. Confirm whether the employee recently exercised protected rights (complaint, FMLA, PFML, workers’ comp). Ensure similar cases were handled consistently. Complete a fair investigation and allow the employee to respond. Prepare final pay and unused vacation in compliance with Massachusetts law. Bottom Line Employee terminations happen. Legal trouble does not have to. Careful documentation, consistent actions, and thoughtful communication protect your business. Before acting, stop and ask: have we done this right? Taking these steps helps you confidently answer, “Can I fire someone for that?” That answer should never rest on guesswork. Michael P. Lewis, is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP , a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. Michael P. Lewis wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.
By The Royal Law Firm August 18, 2025
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and mental disability. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and complainant could not prove that they experienced an adverse employment action. The CHRO agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client due to a lack of reasonable cause.