EEOC Exerts Pressure on Law Firms to Discontinue DEI | FordHarrison

On March 17, 2025, in an unprecedented action, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), under the direction of Acting Chair Andrea R. Lucas, issued 20 extensive letters to large, prominent law firms containing over 100 requests for information and documentation related to their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices. This action appears to be a direct response to the March 6, 2025, Executive Order (3/6 EO), which specifically addressed Perkins Coie LLP. Section 4 of the 3/6 EO directed the EEOC Chair to investigate the DEI practices of other major law firms, focusing on potential set-asides or quotas and discriminatory decision-making in areas such as promotions, training, travel, client team assignments, and event participation.

Although the EEOC typically requires a Charge of Discrimination (filed by an aggrieved person or an EEOC Commissioner) to initiate an investigation, it also has limited authority to conduct directed investigations without such a charge. This authority, granted by Congress, allows the EEOC to investigate age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and sex-based pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) without a formal complaint.

In this case, no formal EEOC Charge has been filed. Rather, according to the EEOC’s press release, these investigations are “[b]ased on publicly available information,” and the Agency’s “concerns that some firms’ employment practices…may entail unlawful disparate treatment” in violation of Title VII, and not any specific charges. The letters request extensive information, particularly regarding diversity internship and fellowship programs, client-mandated diversity reporting, and broader diversity related hiring practices. Importantly, the EEOC seeks detailed data dating back to 2015, covering areas beyond the ADEA and EPA. The letters also reference specific marketing materials and public statements, suggesting a thorough review of the firms’ external communications. Specifically, the letters request information related to the following key areas:

1. Diversity Internship and Fellowship Programs

• Application and Selection Criteria: Firms are asked to describe the criteria used for selecting participants for their 0L (pre-law school), 1L (first year law school) and 2L (second year law school) diversity internships.
• Accelerated Processes: Firms are asked if participation in these diversity programs has provided applicants with expedited consideration for regular summer associate positions or full-time roles.
• Additional Compensation: Firms are requested to disclose whether diversity program participants receive additional funds (e.g., bonuses, stipends, scholarships) beyond standard compensation and provide documentation of these payments.)

2. Data Requests

• Firms are requested to create Excel spreadsheets with detailed data in a searchable format for applicants to the 1L and 2L diversity programs (often from 2015 to present). This includes personal information, selection outcomes, compensation, and whether candidates received additional funds.

3. Law Fellowships for Non-Lawyers

• Firms that offer pre-law fellowships are requested to answer specific questions about the employment of these fellows, including:
  • Payment amounts
  • Work location and responsibilities
  • Technology usage and supervision
  • Detailed data about the fellows hired, including compensation and employment outcomes

4. Diversity Policies and Practices

• DEI Reports: Firms are requested to disclose whether they have produced any reports or plans related to DEI.
• Demographic Goals: Firms are asked whether they set specific demographic representation goals for hiring or promotion, and if so, to provide the associated policies and documents.
• Performance and Compensation Ties: The letters request details on whether DEI goals are linked to partner or associate performance reviews or compensation.
• Diverse Slate Policies: Firms are asked whether they implement policies requiring candidate pools to include individuals of specific demographics.

5. Recruitment and Partnership Decisions

• Recruitment Bonuses: Firms are requested to disclose if they offer bonuses for referring candidates, particularly if these vary by the candidate’s demographic characteristics.
• Partnership Decisions: Firms are requested to report whether any partnership decisions since 2019 have been influenced by a candidate’s race or sex and key Mansfield Certification data.

6. Client Diversity Requirements:

• Client Identification: Firms are requested to list clients with diversity-related criteria for staffing, including race, sex, or other protected characteristics.
• Specific Requirements: Firms are requested to describe these client-imposed diversity standards and actions taken to comply.
• Employee Demographics Disclosure: Firms are asked for instances where the firm shared employee demographic data with clients, including the client’s identity, date, and reason for disclosure.
• Incentive Programs: Firms are requested to disclose any client programs offering financial incentives for meeting diversity goals, including whether the goals were achieved and the amount received.

The letters give the law firms until April 15 to respond, though it remains to be seen what information, if any, the law firms will provide in response to the EEOC’s letters, as the legal authority for the demands is unclear at best. On March 18, several former EEOC officials, including former Chairs Charlotte Burrows and Jenny Yang, former Commissioners Chai Feldblum and Jocelyn Samuels, former General Counsels Karla Gilbride and P. David Lopez, and former Legal Counsel Pegg Mastroianni, released a public letter sent to Acting Chair Lucas, requesting that she “withdraw” the 20 letters because their issuance “appear[s] to exceed [her] authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

The Bottom Line

Setting aside the question of whether the EEOC letters are legally permissible, they clearly evince the Trump Administration’s continued efforts to curtail DEI programing and initiatives across the country in the private sector. All employers – not just law firms – should take steps to confirm that their recruiting, hiring and promotion efforts and initiatives are inclusive and conducted without bias or preference specifically related to race and sex. Likewise, employers should closely consider that many of the EEOC’s information requests relate to the impact of the law firms’ DEI policies and practices on selection decisions. Indeed, each and every one of the letters requests applicant and hire data (including race and sex information), for numerous categories of selection decisions including internships, attorney hiring, fellowships, leadership/training programs and promotion to partnership. This window into the EEOC’s roadmap for investigating the law firms’ DEI programs lends support to the decision of many federal contractors and other employers to continue to monitor their personnel activity data and practices through analytics similar to those that were required under EO 11246. Employers should continue auditing their DEI initiatives and programs to ensure compliance with relevant state and federal laws.