04:05 AMERICAS
The issue is so sensitive that a single clause in a policy or in a statement about a policy can trigger an investigation. According to a report by the New York Times , a faculty group’s statement that says it supports ensuring “faculty and staff demographics . . . mirror student demographics” at George Mason University is enough to be investigated by the Justice Department because it allegedly praises race- or sex-motivated hiring decisions. Conformists Like reversals seen in using corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) as a framework for measuring a portion of a company’s performance, companies have significantly backed down on publicly supporting DEI initiatives within their organizations. A recent Bloomberg Law report reviewed how five large U.S.- based companies have reacted to the anti-DEI push by the Trump Administration. Three changed the title of their heads of diversity, one halted executive bonuses that were based on inclusion factors, and four
policies, according to a Reuters report, and its ERGs could be considered illegal because they allegedly provide opportunities for advancement and training that could be based on gender or race. “Everybody’s lost,” one HR professional said. There is no bright-line for determining if an aspect of a program could be considered against the regime’s policy, or, worse, running afoul of the law. Outside of completely removing these established programs from the HR policy, there appears to be no single approach that has been identified as meeting new standards, and this is where HR professionals and legal teams struggle.
The drive to diminish or wipe out DEI programs in the United States does not eliminate laws set to ensure equal employment opportunity (EEO) in the workforce or civil rights.
48 I 04:05
GLOBAL PAYROLL MAGAZINE ISSUE 15
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online