The Economic Justice Project advances impact litigation, policy advocacy, and community education to dismantle systemic barriers that deny Black communities and other communities of color equal access to economic opportunity and quality health care. We work to confront entrenched discrimination, protect equity initiatives under attack, and champion an inclusive economy where all people can thrive free from injustice.
- Overview
- Latest Litigation Updates
- Past Litigation
- Policy & Advocacy
- Sign-On Letters & Statements
- Endorsements
- News & Updates
- Public Education & Outreach
The Economic Justice Project (EJP) is committed to transforming the economic conditions of Black workers and other historically excluded communities. We pursue impact litigation, advance public policy, and conduct community education to prevent the deepening and entrenchment of current disparities in economic, health, and other outcomes and promote equity in economic prosperity and health. In all of our endeavors, we elevate the voices of community- based organizations that are working to confront systemic inequities in economic opportunity and access to healthcare. EJP envisions an equitable economy grounded in racial justice and equal opportunity.
Racial equity programs and initiatives recognize and address the reality that Black communities and other communities of color continue to experience systemic discrimination and the historical ramifications of slavery and segregation. Through our work supporting racial equity programs, the Lawyers’ Committee strives to help build a more inclusive society by ensuring that artificial barriers to opportunity are removed for Black communities and communities of color, and that these same communities receive the necessary support and resources to overcome historic and ongoing barriers in accessing economic opportunities and high quality health care.
Protecting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives
Leveraging our expertise and experience, the Lawyers’ Committee’s responds to attacks on DEI and equity programming through litigation and amicus support, vigorously defending equity efforts designed to combat longstanding, systemic racism affecting Black communities and communities of color. We help defend entities whose equity programs are being challenged, either through direct representation, as intervenors, or through amicus support. We provide legal analysis to support the legality of the challenged programs, as well as context on the systemic barriers that Black communities and other communities of color continue to face in our society.
Chicago Women In Trades v. Trump
On February 26, 2025, the Lawyers’ Committee filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive orders that severely restrict and chill diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on behalf of Chicago Women in Trades (“CWIT”), a nonprofit dedicated to supporting women in the skilled construction trades. The executive orders require the cancellation of all federal “equity-related” grants and contracts, and the inclusion in every federal contract or grant award a term mandating that recipients certify they do not operate any programs promoting “DEI,” even those falling outside of their federally funded work, under penalty of False Claim Act liability. The lawsuit argues that these requirements violate the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Separation of Powers under the U.S. Constitution. On March 27, the district court of the Northern District of Illinois issued a partial temporary restraining order and on April 15, the court partially granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction prohibits the Defendants from terminating any of CWIT’s federal grants and further prohibits the Department of Labor from requiring a DEI certification in any grants or contracts nationwide. Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit on July 3, 2025.
Why It Matters:
Equity is what CWIT is and what CWIT does. CWIT has a rich 44-year history of tradeswomen advocacy; creating women-focused trades pipeline programs, establishing women-focused pre-apprenticeship programs, developing best practices to recruit and retain tradeswomen, and implementing innovative approaches to gender equity work in nontraditional occupations in Chicago and across the country.
However, the Executive Orders force CWIT into a near- impossible situation with far-reaching consequences for the women and skilled trade stakeholders CWIT serves. Under the Executive Orders, CWIT is forced to choose between compliance with the orders or eliminating its equity-driven work.
Women and tradeswomen-led organizations across the country turn to CWIT for assistance, guidance, and as a model of what is possible. The loss of an organization that serves as a pipeline for education, training, support, and guidance—building both personal and economic growth—would be immeasurable. The impact extends far beyond individuals; it shapes the construction industry, communities, and the future of the workforce. Ultimately, a loss is not just financial – it is a loss of opportunity, empowerment, and progress.
Updates:
- On October 30, 2025, the court upheld the preliminary injunction and dismissed the government’s motion for partial stay and indicative ruling. The court found that the current injunction enjoining the Department of Labor from enforcing the certification provision was and remains necessary to provide CWIT complete relief and comports with the Supreme Court’s analysis in Trump v. Casa.
- On July 3, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Seventh Circuit.
Freedom Network USA v. Trump
On October 10, 2025, Freedom Network USA (FNUSA) filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, challenging executive orders that severely restrict and chill Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives and jeopardize the future of its work to protect human trafficking survivors and prevent trafficking in the U.S.FNUSA is represented by a team of civil rights lawyers from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and pro-bono counsel Crowell & Moring LLP. The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asks the court for a preliminary and permanent injunction to block the enforcement of the executive orders as unlawful and unconstitutional.
Read the complaint here.
Why It Matters:
We are fighting to ensure the Constitution protects survivors’ voices and lifesaving services for trafficking survivors nationwide.
Freedom Network USA serves over 4,000 survivors annually as the nation’s largest coalition of advocates, service providers, and human trafficking survivors working to end human trafficking and provide lifesaving services for trafficking survivors. As a result of Trump’s anti-DEI Executive Orders, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has scrutinized FNUSA’s equity-driven programming for words and content that they arbitrarily interpret to violate the anti-equity Executive Orders. The anti-DEI Executive Orders force FNUSA to erase, hide, and ignore the systemic factors and discrimination that cause these communities to be more susceptible to trafficking. This only perpetuates cycles of poverty and abuse that results in more victims.
70% of FNUSA’s funding comes from the DOJ. Under these circumstances, FNUSA either faces censorship under the pressure to keep its funding or risk termination and exposure to the False Claims Act. Both scenarios severely impede the organization’s ability to continue its work.
The Lawyers’ Committee is representing FNUSA because protecting trafficking survivors is a critical racial justice issue — 40 percent of all trafficking victims are Black and are more likely to face the criminal justice system for trafficking-related reasons. Furthermore, Black, Brown, immigrant, and LGBTQIA+ survivors are disproportionately impacted by human trafficking, and have been historically overlooked by legal and social service providers, underscoring the need for FNUSA’s equity-driven programs.
VA State Conference NAACP v. Governor Glenn Youngkin
On April 15, 2024, the Economic Justice Project, with pro bono counsel Ropes & Gray LLP, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Virginia State Conference NAACP against the Virginia Governor’s Office seeking the release of public records relating to the Commonwealth’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and its compliance with Virginia state law.
Why It Matters: The Virginia General Assembly established the office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and the position of Chief DEI Officer in 2020, with the duties to promote inclusive practices in state government, address systemic inequities in state government practices, and facilitate equity policy. The VA NAACP requested information about the Director and Office of DEI out of concern they are abrogating their duties as mandated by the General Assembly and undermining the very ideals they are charged with promoting. The public records request was sent after Governor Youngkin’s appointed Director of DEI stated during remarks at a training on DEI for the Virginia Military Institute’s faculty and staff in 2023, “Let’s take a moment right now to kill that cow. DEI is dead.” The case seeks to reinforce the basic principle that democracy cannot operate in darkness and to shine a light on the state’s failure to comply with its statutory responsibility to advance diversity, equity and inclusion, outlined in Virginia law.
Updates:
In September 2025, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond issued a ruling condemning Governor Youngkin’s administration for a “willing and knowing violation of the VAFOIA” (Virginia Freedom of Information Act). In addition to finding the Governor’s Office violated the law, the court ordered the Governor’s Office to pay a fine of $500.
The Governor’s Office lost its request to dismiss the case, allowing the case to move forward. The Governor’s Office has repeatedly argued, unsuccessfully, that the Virginia NAACP does not have the right to obtain responsive records. Rejecting the Governor’s argument, the court held that the Virginia FOIA allows associations to make requests on behalf of its members, and that the Virginia NAACP “is an association of the persons who are citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia and are aggrieved by the governor’s failure to provide these records. And it is beyond the question in this record that the NAACP is a long-existing, civil rights organization that clearly would have interest in the principals [sic] of diversity, equity, opportunity, and inclusion.”
Case: Perkins Coie v. Department of Justice, et al.
On April 3, 2025, the Lawyers’ Committee filed an amicus brief in support of the law firm Perkins Coie, after the firm sued the Trump Administration for issuing an executive order that targeted the firm because it once represented Hillary Clinton, among other clients and causes with which the President disagreed. The Lawyers’ Committee’s brief highlights how the executive order chills legal advocacy and threatens the tradition of law firms providing pro bono representation to protect civil rights for those most vulnerable in our country. The Lawyers’ Committee filed its brief in support of Plaintiff’s request for permanent injunctive relief, which would stop the administration from enforcing its unlawful executive order.
The Lawyers’ Committee filed similar amicus briefs in support of law firm Susman Godfrey LLP on April 25, 2025, in Susman Godfrey LLP v. Office of the President, et al., No. 1:25-cv-1107 (LLA) (D.D.C.), in support of Wilmer Hale on April 11, 2025, in Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 1:25-cv-00917 (RJL) (D.D.C.), and in support of law firm Jenner & Block on April 10, 2025, in Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., No. 1:25-cv-916 (JDB) (D.D.C.).
Updates:
In all three cases, federal judges struck down the executive orders targeting law firms as unconstitutional. The Trump Administration has appealed each district court decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Why It Matters: These unconstitutional executive orders target law firms as well as the zealous pro bono advocacy that lies at the heart of why the Lawyers’ Committee was founded over 60 years ago. The executive orders seek to silence critics of the current administration and take away avenues to legal recourse, particularly for those who depend on pro bono advocacy. Without pro bono legal assistance, many cases on some of the most contested and controversial issues may never make their way to the courts.
Case: American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Management, et al.
On September 1, 2023, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, with pro bono co-counsel Crowell & Moring LLP, filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and six other civil rights organizations in opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction filed in the Northern District of Georgia by an anti-civil rights organization, American Alliance for Equal Rights. The lawsuit alleged that a venture capital firm that provided grants to Black women-led start-ups is discriminatory against non-Black applicants under section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, our country’s oldest civil rights statute, which guarantees that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States have the same rights to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by “white citizens.”
Why It Matters: In our amicus brief, we argue that section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 should not be used to strike down a private charitable grantmaking program designed to remedy discrimination against Black women in starting a business. Relying on the history of the law’s passage and the text of the Act, we argue that section 1981 is a race-conscious statute designed to abolish the “badges and incidents” of slavery for formerly enslaved Black people in the United States, and that a remedial program designed to provide start-up funds for Black women entrepreneurs, who receive less than 1% of venture capital, is wholly consistent with and not violative of section 1981.
Updates:
In June 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ordered an immediate temporary pause to the grant program, finding it likely violated the law. In September 2024, the parties settled the case, with Fearless Fund agreeing to voluntarily end the grant program.
Case: Alexandre, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc
On December 11, 2024, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, with pro bono co-counsel Crowell & Moring LLP, filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and five other nonprofit organizations, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the defendant in a case that challenged a grant program that provided $10,000 in start-up funds to qualifying delivery service providers who are “Black, Latinx, and Native American entrepreneurs.” The plaintiffs alleged violations of California state civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866
Why it matters: Congress passed Section 1981 to protect Black citizens from white citizens “whose object was to make their former slaves dependent serfs, victims of unjust laws, and debarred from all progress and elevation by organized social prejudices[.]” John Doe v. Kamehameha Schs., 470 F.3d 827, 836 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Programs like Amazon’s Delivery Service Provider grants are uniquely positioned to further Section 1981’s historical remedial purpose by addressing inequities in access to funding for Black-owned businesses.
Updates:
On May 20, 2025, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.
Case: American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Jorge Zaminillo, et al.
On March 13, 2024, the Economic Justice Project, with co-counsel LatinoJustice PRLDEF and Washington Lawyers’ Committee, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Afro Latino Forum, ASPIRA Association, and Hispanic Federation in the District Court of the District of Columbia in a case alleging that an internship program for undergraduate students with the Smithsonian Institute’s Museum of the American Latino is discriminatory against non-Latino applicants.
The amicus brief explains the racial and ethnic heterogeneity among Latinos, a legacy of discrimination that persist against them, and the value of an internship program that expands opportunity for Latino students. The brief explains how measures such as targeted outreach or the expression of race/ethnicity in the application process are wholly consistent with and in furtherance of existing anti-discrimination laws. Finally, the brief addresses the importance of upholding the legality of these measures as critical tools to expand economic opportunity and overcome discrimination.
Why It Matters: The lawsuit sought judicial condemnation of practices that are both critical to addressing racial inequality and well within the confines of the law, including the collection of demographic information that was sequestered from the selection committee. AAER takes an extremist position that an employer can never know an applicant’s race or ethnicity during the selection process. An outcome in plaintiff’s favor would have infringed on applicants’ rights to express their identities when seeking opportunities for advancement and on employers’ ability to identify systemic barriers in the application process or measure their progress on diversity goals.
Updates:
In March 2024, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after the Smithsonian agreed to include language on its website clarifying that the internship program was equally open to students of all races and ethnicities, without preference or restriction based on race or ethnicity. The evidence demonstrated that was already the museum’s policy and practice notwithstanding the lawsuit.
Case: Roberts v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. & Circular Board d/b/a Hello Alice
On October 25, 2023, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, with co-counsel Crowell & Moring LLP, filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and the Southern Poverty Law Center, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Latino Justice PRLDEF in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case brought by America First Legal on behalf of a white male business owner against Progressive and its nonprofit partner, Hello Alice, alleging their grant program for businesses owned and operated by Black entrepreneurs violates section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The brief explained the need for racially informed philanthropy because of historical and ongoing discrimination in venture capital, and the history, purpose and intent of section 1981 as remedial and thus in harmony with race conscious grantmaking.
Read the amicus brief (filed in the District Court).
Why It Matters: The Lawyers’ Committee’s amicus brief, like its briefs in other cases challenging private efforts to advance equity, discussed how thwarting remedial grant programs for Black entrepreneurs runs counter to section 1981’s Congressional intent to actualize the 13th amendment’s abolition of slavery.
The lawsuit aims to use Section 1981—a statute intended to concretize the promises of the Thirteenth Amendment—to cut back private, philanthropic measures intended to further racial justice.
Section 1981 granted emancipated Black citizens basic economic rights. . The bill’s text ensured formerly enslaved individuals had the right to “make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws,” specifying that those benefits should be the same as those “enjoyed by white citizens.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). The enshrinement of these rights would “enable them to act as autonomous, productive workers,” and, in turn, “accumulate some material wealth.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).
Congress’ intent to abolish “all badges and incidents of slavery” under Section 1981 is just as important today as it was during the height of the Black Codes. And expanding, rather than shrinking, market access to historically and currently excluded groups is as central to Section 1981’s design today as when it was first passed.
Updates:
On May 21, 2024, the district court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek retrospective relief under § 1981 of the Civil Rights Act because he had not alleged he would have received a grant had he been able to apply for one. He also lacked standing to seek prospective relief because the defendants had dropped the race-based eligibility criteria from the following year’s grant program.
The case remains pending in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case: Lange v. Houston County
On October 30, 2024, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the plaintiff in this case in which a transgender sheriff’s deputy challenged her employer’s denial of insurance benefits for gender-affirming surgery on the basis that it was an explicitly discriminatory policy on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the main federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment.
Updates:
After a panel agreed with the plaintiff, the defendant sought and the Eleventh Circuit granted en banc review. On rehearing, the Eleventh Circuit en banc reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that a policy that does not cover gender-affirming surgery does not facially violate Title VII.
Why It Matters: The case sought to clarify the rights of LGBTQ+ workers under Title VII. The Lawyers’ Committee’s brief explained how a heightened evidentiary standard in cases challenging facially discriminatory policies would have grave impacts on Black workers and other systemically marginalized workers.
Case: Azadeh Khatibi et al v. Randy Hawkins et al.
On October 30, 2024, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of California’s law requiring continuing medical education courses to include discussion of implicit bias in the curriculum. The conservative organization Do No Harm which files lawsuits to block health initiatives aimed at addressing racial health disparities, challenged California’s law, claiming that it violated the speech rights of those who taught the curriculum. The Lawyers’ Committee, representing the California Hawaii State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) as well as the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, filed their brief to address mischaracterizations made by the appellant about implicit bias. The brief highlights the ways in which implicit bias in the medical field contributes to and perpetuates health disparities, the adverse impact it has on the health of Black patients and other patients of color, and how implicit bias can be addressed by provider training.
Updates: On July 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s law, rejecting Do No Harm’s claim that the law violated free speech. As a result, implicit bias training remains a requirement in continuing medical education courses.On August 8, 2025, Do No Harm filed a petition for en banc review,and on September 23, 2025, the State of California responded in opposition to the petition.
Why It Matters: Implicit bias training is a necessary tool to reduce racial health disparities and improve treatment outcomes for Black patients and other patients of color. An adverse ruling will impact Black and other people of color in California, specifically those patients who suffer from health disparities caused by implicit bias. It will also undermine instruction and training to address racial inequities in health care settings and beyond.
Case: State of Mississippi et al v. Kennedy
On November 12, 2024, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Greensboro Health Disparities Collaborative and NAACP State Conferences for Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Montana in the Southern District Court of Mississippi in a case that sought to stop the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services from including the implementation of anti-racism plans as an optional clinical practice improvement activity for Medicare providers. The anti-racism rule was promulgated by the Center for Medicaid and Medicare to encourage medical providers to help address racial health disparities, after decades of research revealed that racial and ethnic minorities often receive lower quality of care. The brief filed by the Lawyers’ Committee argued in favor of maintaining the anti-racism rule, highlighting the persistent racial health disparities that exist specifically within the states challenging the rule, and noting that the communities amici serve, Black communities and other communities of color, rely on interventions like the anti-racism rule to address discrimination in healthcare.
Why It Matters: There are still rampant health disparities and discrimination in health care, as Black individuals tend to receive less and lower quality health care than white individuals. Racial health disparities cannot be explained away by referencing the economic or educational differences between racial minorities compared to the white population. These disparities in health care and health outcomes are due, at least in part, to the racial biases of health care providers. Furthermore, a strong body of research shows that some racial disparities in healthcare are due to racism within the medical system. Although the federal government has made efforts to combat these racial biases in the past, those efforts have fallen short of the mark. Anti-racism plans and health equity efforts are not only wholly necessary, but lead to better health outcomes for both Black and white individuals, as well as other individuals of color.
Updates:
On May 30, 2025, the court ordered the case administratively closed after CMS announced it would suspend the anti-racism improvement activity and propose removing the activity in future rulemaking. Read the amicus brief
Case: Reyes-Hernandez v. Monsanto Company et al.
In September 2023, Lawyers’ Committee obtained a settlement of a lawsuit it filed in January 2023 on behalf of Elvira Reyes-Hernandez, a non-U.S.-citizen farmworker, against agrochemical corporation Monsanto in the U.S. district court for the Western District of Virginia. Ms. Reyes-Hernandez was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma in 2019 after exposure to Monsanto’s product Roundup while working on tree farms in Virginia. The lawsuit alleged that Ms. Reyes-Hernandez was discriminated against based on her alienage under section 1981 when she was denied participation in Monsanto’s Roundup master settlement program, which required her to demonstrate U.S. citizenship. Under the settlement agreement obtained by Lawyers’ Committee and co-counsel, Monsanto agreed to neither seek nor accept any provision in future Roundup settlement agreements that permits immigration status or citizenship to be a factor in assessing any claimant’s eligibility to participate in any settlement, or in determining the amount awarded.
The Henrietta Lacks Cases:
Case: The Estate of Henrietta Lacks v. Thermo Fischer Scientific Inc.
On February 22, 2022, the Lawyers’ Committee filed an amicus brief in the case of The Estate of Henrietta Lacks v. Thermo Fischer Scientific Inc (Thermo Fischer). The plaintiff estate sought compensation from, and injunctive relief against Thermo Fischer, one of the world’s largest bio-tech companies and the Defendant in this case, for its continued use and profiting off of the non-consensual and stolen cellular material of Henrietta Lacks in 1951. . In the 1950’s, white doctors at Johns Hopkins Hospital regularly conducted non-consensual, non-therapeutic research on patients in the public ward, which had a large population of indigent Black patients. While providing treatment for cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins, doctors cut out tissue from Henrietta Lacks’s cervix for their research purposes while she was unconscious and under anesthesia. The procedure, which had no medical benefit to Mrs. Lacks, left her infertile. She died several months later, never learning that her cells had been used without her consent to develop the world’s first “immortal” cell line, marketed today as “HeLa cells.”
The Lawyers’ Committee’s brief, which was joined by the National Health Law Program and the National Women’s Law Center, was submitted in support of the Plaintiff estate after Thermo Fischer sought to have the case dismissed. The brief focused on the ways in which principles of consent in the medical context were historically and systemically disregarded for Black, low-income, and other systemically oppressed patient groups. In 2023, after the court rejected Thermo Fischer’s request to have the case dismissed, the parties reached a settlement, making this the first time the Lacks family had ever been compensated. The case also paved the way for others exploited by the medical community to have their day in court.
The Estate of Henrietta Lacks v. Ultragenyx
On August 10, 2023, the Estate of Henrietta Lacks filed a second lawsuit in the United States District Court of Maryland, this time against multibillion dollar pharmaceutical company, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, alleging that the company has been unjustly enriched by its ongoing commercialization and sale of HeLa cell products. On November 9, 2023, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief in support of the estate of Henrietta Lacks. The brief highlighted the historic wrongs and medical exploitation of marginalized groups that allowed Ultragenyx to enrich itself. A federal judge denied Ultragenyx’s request and allowed the case to proceed. The case is continuing its way through the courts with the parties preparing for mediation.
Case: 303 Creative LLC, et al. v Elenis et al.
On August 19, 2022, the Economic Justice Project (EJP), with eight additional civil rights organizations, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the State of Colorado in 303 Creative LLC, et al. v Elenis et al. in the Supreme Court. This case is a pre-enforcement challenge to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”), the same law that was at issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018). Like the Petitioners in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the appellants, a website graphic design company, refuse to provide equal services to same-sex couples, and wish to advertise their refusal to provide equal services, claiming that being unable to do so would violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs and their right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the limited question of “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
Why It Matters: Our brief outlined the history behind public accommodations laws and their role in advancing civil rights for people of color, noting that similar arguments to those made by Petitioners were previously made against public accommodations laws to justify racial discrimination. Our brief also discussed the continued importance of strong public accommodations laws for people of color and highlighted the negative impacts a ruling in favor of the Appellants will have on people of color who identify as LGBTQ. In short, this case threatens to nullify civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations should the Court allow a broad exception on the basis of Freedom of Speech.
Bassett Cases
In June 2022, EJP signed on to amicus curiae briefs in support of the New York Department of Health’s COVID-19 treatment policy in two cases, Roberts v. Bassett, Case No. 22-622, and Jacobson v. Bassett, Case No. 22-692, in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Conservative groups filed legal actions against the New York Department of Health for its implementation of policies that designate race and ethnicity as factors that places individual patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, thereby permitting priority access to lifesaving COVID-19 anti-viral treatment. The complaints allege causes of action under section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and on Equal Protection grounds. Democracy Forward filed the briefs in defense of New York’s policies.
Case: Bradford et al v. U.S. Department of Labor et al.
On August 2, 2022, EJP signed onto an amicus curiae brief in Bradford et al v. U.S. Department of Labor et al. before the Colorado District Court. The brief was filed by Democracy Forward in support of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)’s opposition to a motion for summary judgment. The case was brought by Pacific Legal Foundation and seeks to overturn DOL’s final rule implementing Biden’s Executive Order 14,026, which increases the federal contractor minimum wage to $15 per hour and ended a Trump Administration rule that exempted certain outdoor recreational service employers operating on federal lands from the federal contractor minimum wage requirements. Approximately 20% of all jobs in the U.S. are through federal contracts, thus the outcome of this lawsuit will have a significant impact on the lives of many low-paid workers who have benefited from the increased minimum wage. As the brief points out, if the increase in the minimum wage were enjoined, it would have a negative racial justice impact, as women and people of color are overrepresented in industries that the federal government contracts out and that in many regions pay very low wages. The brief cites to data showing the positive relationship between minimum wage increases and the Black-white wage gap; the disproportionate number of Black workers and other workers of color who occupy the professions impacted by the rule, including in warehousing, building services, food service, and security services; the importance of federal contracting jobs to communities of color; and the recognition that workplace racial inequities undermine efficiency in government contracting.
Case: El Koussa v. Attorney General of Massachusetts
On April 13, 2022, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law signed onto an amicus brief in El Koussa v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, a case before the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is challenging the constitutionality of a Massachusetts ballot initiative, similar to Prop 22 in California, that would classify rideshare drivers as independent contractors, thus denying those workers the rights that come with employment status. The brief was filed by National Women’s Law Center and the law firms Pontikes Law LLC and Powers, and Jodoin, Margolis & Mantell LLP.
Why It Matters: The amicus brief explains that the summaries of the ballot measure are misleading because they do not explain how app-based drivers, especially women of color, will be cut off from leave entitlements, unemployment insurance, civil rights protections against sexual and other harassment, and protections related to equal pay and pregnancy accommodations.
The immense efforts by app-based companies like Uber, Lyft, Doordash and Insta-cart to gain statutory exemptions from employment liability is the latest iteration of a long-running trend of mislabeling workers in underpaid, insecure and unsafe jobs where people of color are doing a disproportionate share of the work—jobs like janitorial services, delivery, trucking, and home care—as independent contractors in order to depress wages and working conditions and maximize corporate profits. In seeking to enshrine a second-class employment status for such workers in the “gig economy,” who are disproportionately people of color and immigrants, these efforts harken back to the racist exclusion of farmworkers, domestic workers and tipped workers from the Fair Labor Standards Act and other New-Deal era legislation which had the intended effect of leaving out Black workers from labor protections to maintain the plantation economy in the South. Misclassification of workers as independent contractors is a significant driver of persistent racial disparities in income and job quality. Learn more
Through policy advocacy, and community engagement, the Lawyers’ Committee strives to ensure that communities of color can access equal opportunities to meaningfully engage in the economy and lead healthy and prosperous lives free from discrimination.
Comments on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Commerce’s NPRM on 25-13271 – Medicare and Medicaid Programs (2025)
On September 12, 2025, the Lawyers’ Committee submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in opposition to a new proposed rule that would remove “anti-racism plans” from the list of voluntary improvement activities that Medicare providers can use to qualify for higher reimbursement rates from the federal government. The comment, filed on behalf of NAACP State Conferences of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming, and the Greensboro Health Disparities Collaborative, discussed the importance of anti-racism measures as valuable steps to working to reduce health disparities and address discrimination in health care.
U.S. Department of Commerce’s Request for Information (RFI) on Business Diversity Principles (2024)
On February 2, 2024, EJP submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Request for Information (RFI) on Business Diversity Principles, published on Nov. 29, 2023. The RFI sought information from stakeholders regarding a set of “Diversity Principles” that describe best practices related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in the private sector, and on the impact of DEIA initiatives. The Lawyers’ Committee’s comment provided support for the proposed Diversity Principles, highlighting the lawfulness of DEIA, the need for and racial justice impacts of permissible DEIA, and the benefits to Black, Brown, and other communities of color in the workforce and beyond.
North Carolina Department of Labor Rulemaking (2024)
On March 4, 2024, EJP submitted comments on North Carolina Department of Labor (NCDOL) rulemaking in support of a set of proposed rules establishing workplace airborne infectious disease safety standards for employers in North Carolina. This comment is a continuation of EJP’s ongoing work advocating for this rule, which began with filing a petition for rulemaking in October 2020, suing the NCDOL when the petition was denied in 2021, and refiling the petition for rulemaking after the court overturned the agency’s denial. EJP drafted the comments in collaboration with co-counsel from the North Carolina Justice Center and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Comments on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services NPRM on Safeguarding Reproductive Health Data (HIPPA Privacy rule)(2023)
On June 17, 2023, the Lawyers’ Committee submitted a comment on the proposed reproductive health-related revisions to the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The Lawyers’ Committee strongly supported the proposed rule, highlighting the racial justice impacts of allowing the existing exceptions to disclosure of sensitive reproductive health information that are borne by communities of color and Black women in particular.
Comments on RIN 3142-AA21: Standard for Determining Joint-Employer Status (2022)
On December 7th, 2022, Lawyers’ Committee submitted comments in support of the National Labor Relations Board’s proposed rulemaking that revises and clarifies the responsibilities of contracting employers under the National Labor Relations Act.
Comments on Supply and Service Program; Proposed Approval of Information Collection Requirements; FR Doc. 2022–25311 (2023)
On January 20th, 2023, the Lawyers’ Committee submitted comments on the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP’s) request for reauthorization of its compliance review scheduling letter. The Lawyers’ Committee strongly supported OFCCP’s requested authorization of the enhanced compliance review scheduling letter and encouraged the agency to finalize it without change.
Comments on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)(2022)
On Oct. 3, 2022, the Lawyers’ Committee submitted a comment in response to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on changes to the implementing regulations of Section 1557 of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (the anti-discrimination provisions). The comment expressed support for the Proposed Rule, which clarifies the broad civil rights protections extended in Section 1557 and provides concrete tools to combat racism and other forms of discrimination in health care. The Lawyers’ Committee’s comment focused specifically on the rule’s treatment of demographic data collection and disparate impact liability.
Comments on Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP’s) rulemaking (2021)
The Lawyers’ Committee submitted comments on December 9, 2021, in support of an Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP’s) rulemaking which sought to restore anti-discrimination protections to employees of federal contractors.
Why It Matters: The OFCCP ensures that federal contractors comply with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits them from discriminating in employment on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.” The OFCCP under the Trump administration issued a rulemaking that dramatically expanded the religious exemption under Executive Order 11246 and in so doing invited federal contractors and sub-contractors to discriminate against workers under the pretext of religious beliefs. EJP’s comments highlighted the dangers presented by the Trump-era rule and in particular, how LGBTQ people of color, women of color and religious minorities of color are especially targeted by biased employers, who could use the religious exemption as a legal justification to discriminate on the basis of race. The comment also discussed the history of the religious exemption and the importance of applying an interpretation consistent with Title VII’s religious exemption.
Comments on Overtime Protections for New York Farmworkers (2021)
The Lawyers’ Committee submitted comments on Dec. 16, 2021, urging the State of New York to adopt overtime protections for farmworkers after 40 hours per week. The letter traced the historical origins of the occupational exclusions for farmworkers and domestic employees from labor law protections, and explained how the occupational exemptions were a proxy for the exclusions of Black workers from basic labor rights. Our letter asserted that the lack of equal overtime rights to farmworkers denies these essential workers equal treatment under the law, and perpetuates the exclusion’s racist legacy.
This section features public statements and joint letters we have signed in solidarity with national partners to take collective action to protect civil rights across the country.
MAY 9, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee signed on to a coalition letter outlining recommendations to HHS for complying with civil rights obligations. At a time when RFK Jr. and DOGE have eliminated entire offices within HHS and CMS, including the Office of Minority Health, and have moved to restructure the Office for Civil Rights within HHS, the letter served to remind the agency of its obligations and involvement in enforcing civil rights laws in healthcare and tackle health disparities caused by systemic racism and discrimination. The letter was led by the Leadership Conference, National Partnership for Women and Families, and National Health Law program.
January 21, 2025: The Lawyers’ Committee, along with 86 other organizations, signed on to Public Citizen’s letter to Congress to oppose RFK Jr.’s nomination for United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. The letter emphasized how RFK Jr.’s record of denying science, misrepresenting facts, conspiratorial beliefs, anti-science stance, and lack of qualifications pose significant threats to the health of Black and Brown communities, including those with low incomes.
MAY 20, 2024: The Lawyers’ Committee signed on to a coalition letter spearheaded by the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, providing support for a Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship hearing regarding federal Minority Business Enterprise programs like the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program and the services offered by the Minority Business Development Agency.
JULY 11, 2024: The Lawyers’ Committee submitted written testimony regarding the House Oversight Committee’s hearing entitled, “Ending Illegal Racial Discrimination and Protecting Men and Women in U.S. Employment Practices.”
DECEMBER 21, 2023: The Lawyers’ Committee signed on to a coalition letter asking the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to quickly release a final rule implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. The letter was prepared by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and its Health Care Task Force.
APRIL 21, 2022: The Lawyers’ Committee signed onto comments prepared by the National Women’s Law Center and Democracy Forward, in support of an Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP’s) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which sought to restore anti-discrimination protections to employees of federal contractors. The OFCCP ensures that federal contractors comply with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits them from discriminating in employment on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.” The rule would modify a rule finalized under the first Trump Administration, which undermined OFCCP’s ability to investigate and remedy employment discrimination by making substantial changes to the pre-enforcement requirements that OFCCP needs to meet in order to pursue and remedy violations.
February 25, 2022: The Lawyers’ Committee signed on to a letter urging the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to revise its standards for the collection of race and ethnicity data to allow for more accurate self-identification. The letter urges revisions to the OMB standards with the intent of expanding the categories in which individuals may self-identify. This request for revisions to the race and ethnicity data collection standards has vast implications for the entire federal government, as OMB standards are used across departments. Significantly, the revisions are a prerequisite to modernizing the questions the Census Bureau uses in its questionnaires for the decennial Census, including the American Community Survey. The sign on letter was led by NALEO Educational Fund and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
January 22, 2022: On the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Lawyers’ Committee joined a sign-on letter in support of the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) (S. 1975), which was passed by the House. The WHPA is a bill to protect abortion access from medically unnecessary restrictions that obstruct the right of safe and legal abortion services. The restrictive state laws that WHPA addresses create a two-tiered system to abortion access, in which low-income and people of color cannot access abortion services, while wealthier, mostly white people are still able to receive access. This is done, among many other ways, by requiring women to travel great distances, accrue substantial additional costs, and take on significant time burdens, in order to obtain abortion services, thus rendering safe and legal abortion access to low income and women of color, particularly Black women, nearly non-existent. EJP’s sign on in support of this bill is a continuation of the Lawyers’ Committee’s endorsement and prior support for its passage, as well as EJP’s amicus advocacy in cases challenging abortion bans. The Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights led the sign-on letter effort.
The section includes economic justice-related legislative priorities and endorsements.
Ending Forced Arbitration of Race Discrimination Act of 2023
On May 15, 2023, the Lawyers’ Committee joined the American Association for Justice in supporting The Ending Forced Arbitration of Race Discrimination Act of 2023. The bill proposes to end forced arbitration agreements that apply to race discrimination claims under any federal, state, or Tribal laws.
Equality Act
The Lawyers’ Committee endorsed the Senate and House’s reintroduction of the Equality Act on June 21, 2023. The Equality Act prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, including in public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system.
Raise the Wage Act
On July 25, 2023, the Lawyers’ Committee endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Bobby Brown’s reintroduction of the Raise the Wage Act of 2023. The bill would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, index future increases to the minimum wage, and eliminate the sub-minimum wage rates for disabled, youth, and tipped workers.
Black Workers’ Bill of Rights
On Oct. 18, 2022, the Lawyers’ Committee officially endorsed the Black Workers’ Bill of Rights, proposed by the National Black Worker Center, which calls on policymakers to explicitly state and affirm rights, protections, accommodations, and services that all Black workers should enjoy and that must be meaningfully reflected in the law and enforced.
This section provides timely updates and press releases highlighting our work to advance economic opportunity.
Lawyers’ Committee Civil Rights Legal Experts Denounce Trump Administration’s Latest Executive Orders | APRIL 25, 2025
Katy Youker, Director of EJP, underscores the importance of disparate impact liability in civil rights law and critiques executive orders and federal agency actions that attempt to roll back workplace protections.
Statement from Lawyers’ Committee Senior Counsel Sabrina Talukder on Temporary Restraining Order in Anti-DEI Executive Orders Case | MARCH 28, 2025
Sabrina Talukder praises the court’s TRO protecting Chicago Women in Trades from enforcement of anti-DEI orders, emphasizing the need for long-term legal protections for gender and racial equity efforts.
Civil Rights Groups Sue Trump Administration to Challenge Anti-DEI Executive Orders | FEBRUARY 26, 2025
Katy Youker joins a coalition of civil rights organizations in litigation against executive orders threatening DEI initiatives. The legal team defends the right of nonprofits to promote inclusive economic access.
Presentations & Speaking Engagements
The Lawyers’ Committee conducts community education and outreach to increase understanding of recent court decisions and the law. We work closely with stakeholders and issue experts to identify and support their unique racial equity goals and programs, and we encourage them not only to continue racial equity initiatives but improve them in order to more meaningfully reach Black and other communities of color. By conducting education and outreach in close partnership with sector leaders and stakeholders, we are empowering our country not to cower before the intimidation tactics of those who seek to dismantle our civil rights.
Featured Publications & Reports
We have developed resources for different audiences on the legality of equity initiatives in different industries.
- The Department of Justice’s “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding on Unlawful Discrimination”: What You Need to Know: Fact Sheet on U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s July 29, 2025 DEIA Memorandum. Read the fact sheet
- Investing in Racial Equity through Charitable Grants and Services: Resource of lawful ways to continue the critical work of fostering fairness and economic opportunity for communities of color. Read the memo
- Advancing Equal Employment Opportunities: Legal resource for putting the affirmative action college admissions cases in context. Read the memo
- Hidden in Plain Sight: Report calling for disaggregated demographic data to address racial disparities in healthcare. Read the report
- Life’s Worth Report: Explores how race, ethnicity, and gender intersect with constitutional protections in employment and economic rights. Read the report
Tools & Resources
If you need help with a problem at work:
- Find a Lawyer: Find-A-Lawyer – NELA Exchange
- Filing Discrimination Complaints: Home | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Free Legal Help: LawHelp.org | Find free legal help and information about your legal rights from nonprofit legal aid providers in your state
- Worker Misclassification Info: Misclassified Workers – National Employment Law Project