This regulatory action follows last summer’s Executive Order (EO) 14332 Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking, issued August 7, 2025. It covers most Executive Branch agencies, including those that directly regulate employers and the health care sector in particular, such as the Department of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services. This overhaul of federal grantmaking is potentially impactful on any organization – including universities and other educational institutions, arts organizations, manufacturers, healthcare providers and researchers, and other entities that rely on federal funding for research grants and other monies.

The initiative will be led jointly by the DOJ Civil Division’s Fraud Section and the Civil Rights Division—with support from the Criminal Division, federal civil rights agencies, and state partners. 

The initiative implements President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (January 21, 2025), directing agencies to combat unlawful discrimination through the FCA, and complements Attorney General (AG) Bondi’s February 5 memorandum, “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences.”

We, along with several of our colleagues, already explained this EO, but this shift in federal policy—barely noticed by most people amidst myriad controversies, memes, and crypto schemes, as well as a number of other executive orders—is important enough to warrant further consideration by anyone who manages workplaces and those of us who advise employers about civil rights laws. As a cover story in the Sunday, May 11, 2025 issue of the New York Times observed, the EO’s directive to curtail the use of disparate impact liability is part of a larger effort to “purge the consideration of diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I., from the federal government and every facet of American life. . . .” and focuses on “the nation’s bedrock civil rights law.”

The Fourth Circuit panel issued its decision shortly after a District Court hearing on an emergency motion filed by the plaintiffs, who requested a status conference to review the  U.S. Department of Justice’s alleged refusal to comply with the preliminary injunction. Four days earlier, on March 10, 2025, the District Court had issued a Clarified Preliminary Injunction along with a Memorandum Opinion, explaining that the February 21st ruling did not apply to the President, but applied to all federal executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions, and their heads, officers, agents, and subdivisions.

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:

These sweeping changes initiated by President Trump at the EEOC should be seen as a critical element of an ever-expanding goal of government-wide elimination, not just of DEI, but of all forms of affirmative action.  This remaking of the EEOC should be viewed in parallel with Trump’s firing of two Democratic Members and the General Counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, revocation of Executive Order 11246, which contractually required covered federal government contractors and subcontractors to meet certain affirmative action obligations, and the possible elimination of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”).

[UPDATE: As of September 15, 2022, the deadline to submit objections is extended to October 19, 2022.]

CIR’s FOIA request asks for a spreadsheet of all consolidated Type 2 EEO-1 reports for all federal contractors, including “first-tier subcontractors,” i.e., subcontractors that contracted directly with a prime federal contractor. Type 2 EEO-1 reports are one of several different types of reports that multi-establishment employers must file annually, which consist of a consolidated report of demographic data for all employees at headquarters as well as all establishments, categorized by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category.

Washington, D.C. employers will not need to scrap all their non-compete agreements after all.  On July 12, 2022, the D.C. Council (the “Council”) passed the Non-Compete Clarification Amendment Act of 2022 (B24-0256) (the “Amendment”), which among other things, tempers the District’s near-universal ban on non-compete provisions to permit restrictions for highly compensated employees.  For further analysis on the original D.C. Ban on Non-Compete Act, please see our previous articles here and here.

The Council delayed the initial ban several times in response to feedback from employer groups.  However, barring an unlikely veto or Congressional action during the mandatory review period, the amended ban will take effect as of October 1, 2022.  We detail the key revisions to the ban below.

Expanded Testing

The District has been operating a program called “Test Yourself DC,” which provides free PCR testing kits for use at home. On December 20, 2021, nine new pick-up/drop-off sites were added to the program, making a total of 36 locations available. The Test Yourself locations are in addition to the eight public testing sites staffed by health professionals administering free PCR COVID-19 tests. Further, the program will be expanded to include “Test Yourself Express,” which will offer free at-home rapid antigen COVID-19 testing kits at eight DC public libraries. District residents who provide proof of residency will be permitted to get two free rapid tests per day and must report their results via an online portal.

The Guidance now contains a new Section N, which addresses when COVID-19 can be considered a disability under each of the three standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), i.e., “actual disability,” “record of disability,” or “regarded as an individual with a disability.”  Regardless of which definition may apply, the Guidance stresses the usual ADA rubric—that employers must conduct a fact intensive, case-by-case analysis to determine if an applicant or employee with COVID-19 or “long COVID” has a covered disability under the ADA.

The Court’s Decision