Emerging Litigation Podcast

What DEI Changes Mean for Employers Featuring Patice Holland

• Tom Hagy • Season 1 • Episode 101

Share episode

As political forces target Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, companies reassessing their DEI strategies must tread carefully—because, while the landscape has shifted, employment discrimination law has not.

Joining me on the Emerging Litigation Podcast is employment law attorney Patice L. Holland, a Principal at WoodsRogers in Roanoke, Va. Patice shares with me what companies need to know as they reassess their DEI initiatives in light of President Trump's recent executive orders and increasing public and political pressure. 

Patice explains that while the administration has moved to eliminate disparate impact liability and deprioritize federal enforcement, core legal protections under Title VII and state laws remain fully intact. Employers—especially federal contractors—face complex new certification requirements and exposure to potential False Claims Act liability, while private businesses must weigh operational risk, employee morale, and public perception in their decisions. 

We also examine the ripple effects across corporate America—from Costco and Apple, which continue to be invested in DEI, to Target and Amazon, which scaled back initiatives and faced backlash. Patice suggests practical considerations for navigating any changes, emphasizing clear communication, leadership buy-in, and careful risk assessment. 

Listen in as she explains the real impact and power of the executive orders, how obligations differ for government contractors and private companies, the legal and strategic risks of altering DEI policies, and the real-world business consequences of staying the course—or stepping back.

💬 Have thoughts or want to contribute to future episodes? Email: Editor@LitigationConferences.com

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

Tom Hagy:

Welcome to the Emerging Litigation Podcast. I'm Tom Hagy, longtime litigation enthusiast, editor, publisher and now podcaster. I'm founder of HB Litigation, which is now part of Critical Legal Content, a business I founded in 2012 to serve as a content marketing department for law firms and litigation service providers. And now here's today's episode. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating. If you want to reach me, please check out my contact information in the show notes. Ties

Tom Hagy:

Patrice Holland. Welcome to the Emerging Litigation Podcast.

Patrice Holland:

Thank you, thanks for having me.

Tom Hagy:

Yeah, so just a little bit about you. I'll briefly say what you do and then ask you if you want to say anything else. But you're Patrice L Holland and I'm predicting you've had to correct people on your name your entire life.

Patrice Holland:

Not the Holland part, actually I have, I thought it was Collins.

Tom Hagy:

Patrice Collins. Patrice Collins.

Patrice Holland:

Patrice Collins.

Tom Hagy:

Okay, oh, great, all right, excellent. I just get Tom Haggy, but they get the Tom every time. So you're a principal, which is like a partner at the Woods Rogers, and you are the practice coach in the government and special investigations practice and you're in Roanoke, virginia, and just this will be in the show notes. Of course, but you're an attorney with a diverse litigation practice. Did you put that in there as a joke? A diverse litigation practice?

Patrice Holland:

Sorry, hey look, that's actually my old bio. That's been in there for years. Okay, all right, very true.

Tom Hagy:

All right, I know the main way I was introduced to you was you are an employment law attorney and you represent employers. That's right. What else could?

Patrice Holland:

you tell me about yourself. Are you a bass player or whatever the bass? But I am a singer. I sing now mostly just at church, but I used to sing somewhat professionally before I made this full-time transition to law. But yeah, I used to do a lot of. Even when I was practicing as an attorney, I did some things professionally as well. Yeah.

Tom Hagy:

I used to play. I'm a drummer, I'm still a drummer, but I've always just played with friends mostly. I've played some other things but and I'm still in touch with somebody I was when I was a teenager. I was in a band with her and she's just an exceptional pianist and singer and and now mostly what she does is like every church in town and a small town.

Patrice Holland:

So they're in high demand.

Tom Hagy:

Yeah, yeah, they need good musicians. Okay, what else about your practice? What can you tell me?

Patrice Holland:

So you're right, I do co-chair our government special investigations group and I am an employment litigator, so I do a lot of employment litigation for the firm. I counsel employers, we deal a lot with compliance issues and I also serve on our firm's board of directors. I serve as the chair of our firm's JEDI committee, which is the Justice, equity, diversity and Inclusion Committee, and also I co-chair that for the Virginia Bar Association the diversity committee for the Virginia Bar Association, and I serve on the Virginia Bar's board of governors.

Patrice Holland:

So I do a lot of stuff in our firm and outside of the firm in the legal community as well, and I'm also a substitute judge for the 23rd Judicial Circuit.

Tom Hagy:

That's a state, obviously a state.

Patrice Holland:

A state court position yes.

Tom Hagy:

You said substitute. No kidding, really. So somebody gets sick, goes on vacation, whatever, or they just need extra judging.

Patrice Holland:

That's correct. I will serve.

Tom Hagy:

And you will serve on any kind of case.

Patrice Holland:

Any kind of case. But I usually serve in what they consider the general district courts in our district. So the general district court. You can handle civil cases, traffic cases as part of that there's also juvenile and custody cases, traffic cases as part of that there's also juvenile and custody cases, domestic cases. So I serve in that capacity as well Not as much as I used to because I've been pretty busy in my private practice, but I try to help the judges when they need it.

Tom Hagy:

Oh man, all right, you're doing good work, I enjoy it and yeah, you've got a really diverse day.

Tom Hagy:

Okay, so I'll just briefly say what, in case anybody's been asleep for the last year. What has been going on? President Donald J Trump signed an executive order maybe more than one eliminating the use of disparate impact liability is the way it's phrased, and maybe you can explain what that is To ensure treatment under the law, equal treatment under the law, which I thought we were doing. That. Sorry, I'm not going to interject my own opinions. So the order? It revokes all previous presidential actions there's been a lot of that happening that approved disparate impact liability, the way they put it, and he has directed all agencies to deprioritize enforcement of related statutes and regulations. It mandates the termination of all DEI and DEIA.

Tom Hagy:

I didn't. I should have looked up what that is Programs, policies and positions within the federal government, including the chief diversity officer roles. So what they hope to do is restore merit based opportunity and equality of treatment, emphasizing individual effort and achievement over group outcomes. Okay, I think I did pretty well. I'm not putting my opinion in there too much, but yeah, so this seems to be that they see DEI as different than merit-based. So what else might people want to know about the executive orders?

Patrice Holland:

I think the first thing, and something that we've counseled our clients on, is that you know executive orders they do not make law. They carry the force of federal law, but they don't really make law. There are certainly things that the president can utilize to enforce policies. It does set the temperature right as to how the president is viewing certain policies and certain laws and looking for enforcement of those that you have as an employer, as a federal contractor, if you have any sort of business, or if you're a higher college or higher educational institution, that you are making sure your policies are lawful. That's the key. Certainly, the executive orders. They do really target specifically DEI and are trying to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Patrice Holland:

You mentioned DEIA. The A is the accessibility portion there. So, in that context, looking at people that have disabilities that are looking for easy access or more inclusive access, just access period that's what the A stands for. Yes, this administration. Promptly, the same day the president was inaugurated, he signed an executive order regarding diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. So this is a priority of this administration and so, in terms of that though you just want to make sure that, in terms of disparate impact that's, looking at things that may not be intentional, you may not have intended to discriminate, but what that executive order in terms of targeting those types of initiatives is to make sure that there's no disproportionately no negative effect of your program. It's not affecting a protected group or intentionally discriminating.

Tom Hagy:

Oh, sorry to interrupt you In talking to you. When we look at some companies, they're either getting rid of their DEI policies and getting boycotted in some cases, or they're maintaining them and getting boycotted, or I suspect some. I have no basis in fact on this, but I suspect some are doing a superficial removal of DEI, but they're not. That doesn't mean, hey, let's go out and discriminate, but in doing that, what you had told me before is make sure that you're. There are other laws in place protecting different classes, so talk about that aspect.

Patrice Holland:

Absolutely so when I say make sure you don't have any unlawful programs in Virginia, specifically, they are the courts that Virginia has the Virginia Values Act. So that's a state, our state laws, that will govern what you can and cannot do in Virginia. Of course we are all subject to Title VII if you're an employer that meets those requirements. So if you're an employer that meets that, then of course you're going to be subject to Title VII under federal laws. And there are other laws, of course, that may relate to some of the programs or policies that you have. So in terms of that, that's what we're really governed by. Those are actual laws. The executive orders, again, are not laws but they do carry the force. But what we make sure our clients are knowledgeable of and that they're adhering to are the laws that apply and that are the law of the land. So of course, any Supreme Court decisions that have come down Bostick decision those have not been overturned at this time. As to sexual identity, gender, all of those things, those are still laws in this country. You want to make sure that your clients and our clients know those laws, are aware and their policies and procedures fall within the law.

Patrice Holland:

In terms of looking at your DEI policies. You mentioned boycotts and all of that, something that I made sure. When this first came down, our clients wanted to say, hey, what should we do? We have DEI programs, we have initiatives. I'll even speak for our own firm. We have, as I mentioned at the beginning, we have what's called the JEDI group, and so we looked at our own website. We want to make sure you're looking forward, looking at your outfacing communication and also internally, do you have any policies? Do you have any procedures? What does your vision and mission statement say about your diversity programs? So those are things that private employers are looking at.

Patrice Holland:

If you're a federal contractor, you're receiving any type of federal funds. You've got a little bit of a different viewpoint, but in all of that, you are assessing your risk. Do you scale back those programs after you've reviewed your website, your policies, procedures? Do you take a chance and do nothing? Do you wait and see? Are you going to be more aggressive and just say let's just scrap everything? We don't want to have a target on our back, so let's just scrap everything. Do you scale back? In a subtle way, as you mentioned? I will say that the executive orders, though, specifically say just changing the name of something is not enough. So you can't just have a coded switch. You have to really be intentional in scaling back if you're going to scale back, or removing, and you mentioned a couple of things.

Tom Hagy:

So just for people who are less in tune with employment law, title VII, what is that?

Patrice Holland:

Yeah, so Title VII is a federal law that deals with, of course, protecting. It's a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, national origin. We've now added in pregnancy, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity. And then also there are some other laws USERRA that deals with military. There are just other laws that apply, but Title VII is really the big law.

Patrice Holland:

It was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So employers, they are basically ensuring that they have equal employment, equal opportunity in their workplaces, and so you want to use that as the baseline. That is really the law that governs workplace, the work environment, and that equal opportunity and employment.

Tom Hagy:

Sounds a lot like DEI to me.

Patrice Holland:

Not in a way.

Tom Hagy:

OK, it's just my lay kind of impression.

Patrice Holland:

Well, yeah, I think it's a good point because you want to make sure you've got people that you're employing. They have, they're not going to be discriminated against, and it goes from all aspects of employment. So from hiring, firing, compensation, it looks at the entire workplace environment. I think DEI has been a loaded term, for it's been politicized in so many ways over the years. I'm not saying that from one political party or the other, just period it's been politicized. But I think what has not changed and should not change is really what the law is and that is that we, under Title VII, if you're an employer, you are obligated under the federal law to make sure you're not discriminating against people based on their race. You're wanting to add more diversity in your workplace. It's not just we want to have quota, because of course that's unlawful, but diversity.

Patrice Holland:

Increasing diversity can be diversity of thought, it can be geographic diversity, right? So if I'm sitting here in Roanoke, virginia and southwest Virginia, so maybe you want your person is further west in the state. You may not have a lot of racial diversity, for example. Maybe your diversity efforts are going to be somewhat different from someone sitting on the east side of Virginia or someone that's sitting in Pennsylvania. You may have some different objectives. So I think diversity again has been a loaded politicized term, but it's truly just a need to say. We want a more well-rounded workforce, we want to work with people that have different backgrounds, and that's our goal. We're not trying to count, we're not having a quota, but we are looking to enhance diversity of thought and to have people that are different from us who can add and enhance our company, our work environment.

Tom Hagy:

Yeah, I had a jury consultant on Tara Trask and she was saying that she was talking about diversity in juries and on trial teams and one of the points she made was it's not just a nice thing to do. There's value in people with perspectives that come from different places in the world. You know what I mean. Different backgrounds and things.

Patrice Holland:

A hundred percent yeah.

Tom Hagy:

Especially if you're well, in her case you might have a jury that's going to be diverse, and so your trial team anyway. So there are advantages. But your point about politicization I don't think anybody would argue that so many words are politicized right now. Climate change is politicized, or climate whatever. Everything's everything. It's just that we're just in that environment right now. Period, end of story. What's the Virginia Values Act?

Patrice Holland:

So the Virginia Values Act similar to Title VII. So the Virginia Values Act similar to Title VII, but it's Virginia specific and in some ways it was enacted in 2020. It's a civil rights act in Virginia that sends protections. So the civil rights law in Virginia similar somewhat to the Title VII, but there are some extended protections in Virginia for LGBTQ plus individuals. There is we have now enacted what's called the Crown Act. So discrimination for any discrimination relating to hair traits in one's hair, how they are. If I came on today when I met you, I think I had my hair natural.

Tom Hagy:

It's still natural today.

Patrice Holland:

Maybe I come today and my hair is braided and it's different and there are protections in Virginia that deal with certain things such as pregnancy, lactation, all of those things, and it expands somewhat some of those federal laws that are recognized federally. But Virginia has a more specific and in some ways broader protections for its citizens in the Commonwealth and in some ways broader protections for its citizens in Commonwealth.

Tom Hagy:

Yeah, there was a hair case. Was it a wrestler or oh shoot, there was a big case about hair and I think it had to do with a wrestler. And now when I wrestled, we didn't do this. It was like in the 1800s when I wrestled. Now they wear like a head cap or something, or looks like maybe a swim cap or something. We had to have ear protection, but anyway, so you could have hair. My hair was always too long and they would always cut it with tape scissors. I always looked great, and that was Ohio. They're very strict about the hair, but it seemed to me there was like a certain type of hairstyle. Yeah, it was a certain type of hairstyle and, yeah, they wouldn't let him wrestle. I don't know if it became a court case or not, but it got a lot of national attention.

Patrice Holland:

Yeah, there's a lot of cases that you probably saw in the media where students weren't allowed to go to their graduation or their senior prom because of their hair, and it's usually so specifically it's tied to a minority status, so someone that has dreads, someone that is wearing their hair natural, but typically the cases have been someone that has their hair in locks or dreads, someone that is wearing their hair natural, but typically the cases have been someone that has their hair in locks or dreads.

Tom Hagy:

Yeah, okay.

Patrice Holland:

Yeah.

Tom Hagy:

I say unless it obstructs views at graduation.

Patrice Holland:

That could be a hat.

Tom Hagy:

That's true. That's true. My daughter. She is a white girl but she had dreads, which I think is controversial in some ways. But she had dreads and, oh my gosh, she went to school. I don't mean to, I'm not going to disparage the school, fine school, but she was in. So she's like into Bob Marley and she thinks pot should be legalized and she's got the Grateful Dead dancing bears on her car. She got a Bob Marley sticker on her car. She's got a Bob Marley sticker on her car and she's got dreads. And she went to school in Lynchburg, virginia. I'm like, sweetie, just go to the police station and turn yourself in because you stand out. And sure enough, she was. Anyway, she works with, she's in Vermont and ended up in Vermont, which is better, and now she works with children with learning disabilities and autism and things like that. So, anyway, I don't mean she loves when I talk about her like that. Dad, no one wants to hear about my Lynchburg years, but anyhow, okay. So, yeah, hair, I didn't realize. Yeah, I never thought about that as being part of it, but you mentioned.

Tom Hagy:

So we're talking about looking at all of your policies ensuring that you're compliant with actual laws. Okay, executive orders are not laws. I'm sure that'll be, if it isn't already. I should know this. That'll probably end up at the Supreme Court somehow. I don't know. I'm just speculating and just as a side note, because we want to talk, I want to ask you about Target. Note, because we want to talk. I want to ask you about Target.

Tom Hagy:

Before I ask about Target, a thing that I was fearing was the influence of these policies on corporate corporations doing business, and I was concerned. The FTC has five commissioners and they're usually balanced. You can't have more than three commissioners from one party. So when President Trump came in, he appointed his commissioner, replaced Lena Kahn, who was considered liberal under Biden, but he fired the two Democratic, the two Democrats on the panel. So now there's only three people on the panel and they're Republicans and the commissioner is very much supportive of the president.

Tom Hagy:

So I was just concerned. Okay, they're going to be looking at mergers and acquisitions and I was just speculating is that going to affect the policy, is going to affect decisions there? But what I missed was the Federal Communications Commission. The head of that came out and said openly I think it was maybe March that if there are big mergers with media companies that espouse DEI, that's going to be a factor, that's going to be a strike against them in the merger and that's going on right now in the case of Paramount, which owns CBS, which runs 60 Minutes, which President Trump has sued. Right and right now, before the FCC, is this big paramount merger with another company and the guy came right out and said that suit will be a factor and their DEI policies will be a factor, like, okay, so it's going to affect employers in many different ways and people doing business. Did I sound biased at all in that? I'm just aren't I just laying out facts? Maybe?

Patrice Holland:

You may be leaning a little bit.

Tom Hagy:

I'm going to try not to but that merger. I don't know anything about the merger. It could be a bad merger. Market consolidation is a bad thing sometimes. But I wanted to ask you about Target. What's going on with Target? It's a fine store. It's very cheerful when I go in there. They have a good selection. What's happening with them?

Patrice Holland:

I think Target and I wanted to be careful because I know that Walmart announced and I know you want to talk about Target, but Walmart announced their rollback of their DEI initiatives back in I believe it was November. As soon as President Trump was elected, they announced that they were going to be rolling back their DEI initiatives as early as November. What's really unusual about Target is everybody's figuring out why is Target being the target? No pun intended, target didn't announce their rollback until January 24th. So, as I mentioned before Trump, president Trump announced or signed the executive order the first executive order relating to DEI back on January 20th. So four days later, target says, hey, we're going to roll back. And the important part here is that, again, while executive orders are not law, they do have the force of law.

Patrice Holland:

So I think Target and Target's not a client of mine so I don't know why they made certain decisions, but they decided to roll back their programs and I think why most people focus on Target more than a Walmart, for example, because Target was really well known to promote Black businesses and small business owners, minority business owners, and so the community as a whole kind of view Target as somewhat of an ally and a little bit more, but I'm not speaking on behalf of what they did or did not view Walmart as, but I think that's really where that started. And Pastor Jamal Bryant in Atlanta, georgia, after that announcement, initiated this 40-day boycott in conjunction with the Lent, lenten season. Right, you do 40 days.

Patrice Holland:

So that's where the 40-day boycott came from but immediately before that. People started boycotting Target immediately and they started seeing a reduction in their foot traffic, and then they started seeing a huge reduction in their money that they were receiving. So they had a lot of loss.

Patrice Holland:

Their stockholders apparently were very upset about it because there was, of course, a decrease in their money they lost about. I think the record loss was around $12 billion as a result of this boycott, and so Target really had a target on its back because of their announcement Again because of the programs that they were rolling back seemed to be more, seemed to affect the minority-based communities a little bit more and it hit harder for them. Reverend Al Sharpton is announcing that he met with the CEO of Target recently and there may be a newer boycott, but there doesn't seem to be a change right now, even after the 40, we're past the 40-day period of the boycott that started Target. Really going back to what I say, we advise our clients that they want to look at your policies, your outward-facing messages, your inward facing messages, assess your risk. They took a chance of rolling it back and it ended up not being a really great decision after all, but it's what targets learning is not really a great decision. They're now trying to come back from somewhat of the rollback and do some different things.

Patrice Holland:

The executive order didn't really mandate Target to do it because it touched on the private sector, but the private sector was really nervous about having an investigation. A lot of private sector employees like Target are just nervous about having a robust policy like it had pre-executive order and Target took a risk and that risk unfortunately ended up being decreased in foot traffic for their company and they're still losing tons of money. The flip side real quick of that is the companies like Apple, trader Joe's, costco they doubled down hard Ben and Jerry's they doubled down and said we are confirming, we are confirming our commitment to DEI. Those companies did very well since that confirmation.

Patrice Holland:

People that didn't go to Target went to Costco if they had a Costco in their community. Costco is now opening up more Costcos and Target is really feeling the effects of it. It's really a hard balance for employers to make the decision as to how far, if at all, you roll back, or do you just stand strong and take a chance? That's a company by company assessment and there's really no right or wrong answer. You just have to be willing to take the consequences of the decision for your company.

Tom Hagy:

Yeah, no, that's a good way of putting it. Yeah, it has to be company by company. It does seem like the people that are standing strong at the moment, including with the big law firms WilmerHale and et cetera and Jenner they seem to be winning in court. The companies that are standing their ground on it do seem to be doing better. I guess when we mentioned Target, because that's the closest thing to me, my wife is willing to drive further to Costco, and when she does go to Costco we have so much stuff suddenly in the house it's just like how much rice do you think we're going to eat? But anyway, it's a great store and she's always coming back to me, back with shirts and things for me. I don't know why. But the, but I just figured also target. You know, rolling back a policy, it doesn't look good, certainly, but I kept going to. What have they actually done? Have they actually discriminated or whatever? That company has a policy or not a policy, but that's just me. What's their conduct?

Patrice Holland:

Yeah, I think that and that's again two separate analyses right, because whether or not they're discriminating against folks that come to their store or their employers excuse me, their employees you're going to see lawsuits that come from that, you're going to see EEOC charges that come from that.

Patrice Holland:

That's really not what the spotlight is and that's not really the core of the boycott. The core portion of the boycott is you are at least they're claiming that there's divestment divestment from the community. That is why the community now is divesting from Target. My understanding is there have been some tips that are being bargained and the CEO is now heavily involved, both with speaking with Pastor Jamal Bryant in Atlanta, georgia, and, as I mentioned, sharpton as well. That's been reported in the news that there have been conversations, so there are things that they are willing now to negotiate, to get back into the community to show commitment. But does it look the same? I don't know. And what they really rolled back was that it was called their REACH program and again it was just focusing on increasing and giving an opportunity to minority, to minority small businesses, and that included women as well, not just black women, but white women, all women who were not really provided those opportunities, maybe in other big box stores.

Tom Hagy:

Yeah, yeah, that also reminds me too, because there's certainly there are government lending programs for women owned, women of color owned, et cetera. So you wonder if those are going to be impacted. And if the Civil Rights Act and Title VII are in place, you wonder if those will be attempts to undermine or tone those down. I hope not, but yeah, there's just so much going on with it right now. But I think, too, companies, the boycotts do seem to be working and the court challenges seem to be working.

Tom Hagy:

Tesla has learned that the hard way. I mean, talk about a change of fortune. Tesla cars were just like liberals with money, what do they call them? Limousine liberals I always love that expression but liberals who could afford them, who want to believe in climate change, they're all snapping them up and look how, my gosh, how quickly that changed. So your brand is so obviously important. But I do feel for companies when I don't know, like Facebook, when they say we're not going to have fact-checking or whatever, when they say these things we can hate or we can disparage Zuckerberg, which I often do with my friends, but he doesn't hear me or care. But it's like they also.

Tom Hagy:

Long time ago somebody made the statement CEOs report to shareholders. Their goals aren't for the good of society or the country the good of society or the country. Their goals are to support share prices and shareholders, which is a reality that I think that sometimes a good company can straddle and do both. But if they make these decisions, sometimes they've got shareholders to answer to. But anyway, as I mentioned before we started, sometimes I digress. As I mentioned before we started, sometimes I digress. Why don't we, if we could? So I think you've covered a lot of ground, so maybe you could give me just I don't know 60 seconds on a wrap up. What should an employer do right now? They want to stay compliant with the actual laws. They don't want to get in the crosshairs of the president for whatever reason. What should employers do now in light of this shift in DEI?

Patrice Holland:

So I want to start just saying I know we've been talking a lot about private sector employers we do represent federal contractors as well and that's really key.

Patrice Holland:

And so the executive order and we've really been talking generally about it, but it's called ending illegal discriminationegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.

Patrice Holland:

I think you started talking a little bit about that, but really it applies to federal contractors, recipients of the federal funding, and so that really those employers have a different viewpoint and they're going to be looking at whether or not they have to terminate any illegal DEI or DEIA, all of those things. If they're receiving federal funds, they've got a little bit of a different standard or a lot different standard than your private sector employers, I would say, and that's why you're starting to see pushback. You've seen this new lawsuit from Harvard. You've seen all of these folks who are receiving federal funds, the federal contractors. They're now having to certify that they are not violating the law. They're not having any type of DEI, all of those things, and they're having to do a certification of that. So those are some ramifications that they could have under what's called the False Claims Act or False Claims Reporting Act. So that's a separate thing. I know we didn't really dive into that.

Tom Hagy:

No, I'm glad you brought it back.

Patrice Holland:

No, I just wanted to touch on that just for a second. They do have different consequences. So our advice to federal contractors and to any employers or anyone receiving federal funds those are a lot different than our private sector folks, but what I'll leave you with. I know you said I got 60 seconds.

Tom Hagy:

No, you don't have 60 seconds. No, you don't have 60 seconds because I wanted to talk about this. Go ahead.

Patrice Holland:

I just want to leave with the advice really for all employers. But specifically we do have a lot more private sector employers, but we definitely deal with our federal contractors as well. Keep those things in mind. You want to make sure that you are your federal contractor. You've got your I's dotted, t's crossed. Their risk analysis is a lot different than our private sector employers. But for my checklist, really, if someone came to me and said, hey, we see these new executive orders, what should we do? Let's walk through a checklist. I would first say are you a federal contractor or no? Do you receive any federal funds or no? Those are the first questions I ask because, again, the analysis is a little different for those folks.

Patrice Holland:

The first thing you want to do is look at what you have. Do you have a position in your company that's a DEI employee, like the person is like the head of DEI, for example, and that's their title? If that's the case, some people are, some employers are deciding to rename that position or maybe even reorganize what that person is responsible for doing. If you have, again, a website looking at that information, that's your outward facing communication. So if, under the executive order, you're going to be investigated, perhaps because of your policies. That's going to be. The first place that they're going to look is at your website. So you want to make sure you're looking at that website. Make sure that there's nothing on your website that's unlawful, violating any federal laws. Again, if you're a Virginia employer, you make sure you look at your state laws. If you're in Arizona, get those state laws. California, all of those places.

Patrice Holland:

The other thing you want to do is look internally, look at your own. Do you have any DEI initiatives or programs? Look at those. Do they have? Could they have a disparate impact? Could they negatively or disproportionately affect or discriminate against one particular group? I would look at that. I would look at all of that. Make sure you assess your risks. So if you decide, hey, we want to just completely cut out all of our programs, how does that affect your customers? If you're an employer, also think about it from a law firm too. We have a lot of you mentioned some of the law firms that are fighting back. Some of them have been specifically named in executive orders.

Patrice Holland:

Right, skadden decided they're going to give some pro bono hours to the Trump administration. Some of these other firms are doing different things, but looking at how it may affect your clients, you know, on the clients that you look at, that you're dealing with. These are all assessments, unfortunately, and fortunately, I guess, for depending on your viewpoint. But you have to really make. Look at your employee handbook, make sure you are complying with the applicable laws Title VII and you have an EEO statement, making sure you're still lawful, because at the end of the day, this could end up in court, no matter where you go, and the courts do. Look at executive orders to say did you have the authority to make that, mr President? Make that executive order and is this constitutional? And so you want to make sure, if you're on the other side of that, that you have your house in order and that your policies are lawful and sound. And at the end of the day, it's a business decision.

Patrice Holland:

Target made a business decision, so did Costco, and whether you are gambling and whether that gamble pays off or not is really the decision you make. But I think, at the end of the day, what I don't know, that Target did, that you should do, I think, is to get a buy-in from your if you have shareholders, if you have partners, if you, from your C-suite, your CEO make sure everybody's buying into what you're doing. I think it's really key that if you are going to move forward and you're going to stand your ground, everybody's buying in on that decision. Or if you decide you're going to scale back, you too have buy-in for that, because at the end of the day, that's really going to be important.

Patrice Holland:

And then the last thing I'll say and I think a lot of employers forget this sometimes is your employees. How does this affect? How does your rollback, if you're going to roll back, how does it affect your psychology, the mental awareness, your employees? So, if you have LGBT employees and you have a large number of those employees, if you're getting rid of certain bathrooms or you're getting rid of certain policies that relate to that, how does that affect your employees and what is going to be your internal blowback from those employees, if at all?

Tom Hagy:

Yeah, good, thank you for wrapping that up and thank you for steering me back to the federal contractors. I forgot to bring that up and I guess that's going to be an interesting thing as people are applying for federal contracts. Yeah, yeah, gosh, is that going to be a question on the questionnaire?

Patrice Holland:

I'm going to be scrutinized heavily.

Tom Hagy:

You are going to be scrutinized. Yes, batiste Holland, thank you very much for speaking with me today. This is obviously a hot topic, interesting one.

Patrice Holland:

Yeah, thanks for having me, tom, I really enjoyed it.

Tom Hagy:

I won't ask you to sing on the way off, but you should know that in the intro music I am playing the bongos.

Patrice Holland:

Sounds great, thank you.

Tom Hagy:

The Emerging Litigation Podcast is a production of Critical Legal Content which owns the awesome brand HB Litigation. Critical Legal Content is a company I founded in 2012. That was a long time ago. What we do is simple we create content that's critical on legal topics for law firms and legal service providers. I believe we even have a catchy tagline, which is your legal content marketing department. That kind of content can be blogs, papers, they can be podcasts, webinars and we have a good time doing it and S4HB litigation well, that's the name under which we publish interesting at least interesting to me legal news items, webinars, articles, guest articles all on emerging litigation topics.

Tom Hagy:

That's what we do. Once again, I'm Tom Hagee, with Critical Legal Content and HB Litigation. If you like what you hear and you want to participate, give me a shout. My contact information's in the show notes. Thanks for listening. Thank you.