The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
Methodology
Introducing the Tracker and Scope
The DEI litigation tracker monitors federal lawsuits that directly or indirectly affect DEI in the workplace.
A lawsuit has a direct effect if it challenges the legality of a DEI program, or if a DEI program is central to an employee’s claim of discrimination against an employer. We define a DEI program broadly to include any policy or initiative aimed at promoting diversity, improving an organization’s culture of inclusion, or advancing the equal status of marginalized people.
A lawsuit indirectly affects DEI in the workplace when the issues in the case, or the court’s analysis, provide insight into how future challenges to DEI may be handled by courts. For instance, the decisions in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, State of Missouri et al are included in our tracker. While those decisions do not directly relate to DEI programs, they offer insight into the standard of harm required to make out a discrimination claim, which could have implications for challenges to DEI programs.
What We Are Not Tracking
Given our exclusive focus on cases affecting DEI in the workplace, the following categories are not included in the tracker:
Critical Race Theory (CRT) Litigation and/or Legislation: Cases or legislation challenging CRT. The CRT Forward Tracking Project at UCLA Law is already tracking these developments comprehensively.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Litigation and/or Legislation: Similar to CRT cases, ESG-related litigation is generally outside the scope of workplace DEI. However, cases challenging race-conscious initiatives affecting executive boards or leadership teams, and other cases that overlap with DEI, are included in the tracker where relevant.
What We Are Monitoring but Not Including in the Tracker
Pro-DEI Cases: While we are keeping track of lawsuits that could potentially advance DEI, they are not currently part of the tracker. Instead, updates on these cases will be included in the Resources section.
Anti-DEI Legislation: Our tracker focuses on litigation rather than legislation. In addition, most anti-DEI legislation targets DEI programs in higher education rather than in the workplace. We are monitoring anti-DEI legislation and may report on developments in the Resources section, but our analysis will not be included in the tracker itself.
State Court Cases: Although most anti-DEI cases are filed in federal courts, we are also noticing a small number of cases in state courts. Updates on state court cases will occasionally be provided in the Resources section.
Compiling the Cases
We track cases through Bloomberg Law, LexisNexis, media reports and other online searches to ensure our website provides timely and accurate information. While we aim to add new cases or updates promptly, there may be some delay due to the manual maintenance of the tracker.
Organizing the Data
A case may be heard by multiple courts before it reaches a final resolution. Each court’s review of a case constitutes a separate entry in the tracker. For instance, a case heard in a U.S. District Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court will have three separate entries. These entries are grouped under "litigation history" for each case, providing specific details on what occurred.
For each entry in the tracker, we provide the following details for users to filter or sort the cases:
Date: The date a document initiating the case was filed in a particular court (e.g., complaint filing date at the district court level, or certiorari filing date at the Supreme Court level).
Case Name: While case names generally follow the parties as listed in Bloomberg Law, in some instances we have simplified or standardized case names for ease of reading or to ensure related cases are linked.
Court and Court Type: Indicates whether the case is in a District Court, Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court, with separate entries for cases heard in multiple courts.
Litigation History: For cases that have been appealed, provides links to case entries at each level in the court hierarchy.
Topic: Cases are categorized according to issues raised or initiatives challenged. Some cases may implicate multiple topics.
Targeted Programs: Programs intended to uplift or benefit a marginalized or underrepresented group, such as a scholarship, grant, fellowship, or internship.
Government Programs: Programs created or implemented by the government.
Workplace Discrimination: Cases where a plaintiff is accusing their employer of discriminating against them because they are white, male, or belong to any other majority or dominant group in the workplace. .
Directors’ Duties: Cases brought by shareholders of a publicly traded company against directors or executives for reasons related to the company’s DEI programs.
Diversity Training: Challenges to an organization’s employee education and training on DEI-related topics.
Diversity Targets: Cases in which a plaintiff challenges an organization’s explicit goals to increase representation of marginalized or historically underrepresented groups in the workplace.
Freedom of Speech and Religion: Cases where a plaintiff claims that their freedom of speech or religion was violated due to an organization’s approach to DEI. This category may also refer to cases where an organization defends its DEI initiative on free speech grounds.
School and University Admissions: Challenges to an educational institution’s admissions process due to their consideration of race or other identities.
Related Cases: Indicates other cases that have similar factual or legal issues.
Relevant Law: Denotes the laws allegedly violated by the defendant. An overview of the most common laws invoked in anti-DEI lawsuits is available in the Law of DEI section.
Status: Indicates whether the case is open or closed. If the case is open, it will be listed as “ongoing” with a brief description of the current status. If closed, it may be listed as one of the following:
Settled: The parties have resolved their dispute voluntarily.
Decided: A judge considered the issues raised and made a final decision in favor of one party over another.
Appealed: the case has been decided by a judge, but the party that did not prevail has asked a higher court to review that decision.
Relevant Location: Organized by federal circuit, reflecting the geographic divisions of the federal court system. Supreme Court cases are listed under all circuits, as they determine the law nationwide.
Significance: A brief explanation, where relevant, for why a particular case is important for the future of DEI.
Disclaimer
All information on the Advancing DEI Initiative website, including the tracker, is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. To determine how the current legal landscape affects your organization and its DEI programs, please seek appropriate legal counsel.