Why are so many employers asking whether DEI is still “allowed,” and what can they do now without creating legal risk?
One year ago today, President Trump issued Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” followed the next day by Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” Together, these orders directed federal agencies to dismantle government DEI programs, emphasized merit-based decision-making, and called for heightened review of policies and practices perceived to involve preferential treatment.
What followed was not just policy change, but a wave of legal and regulatory uncertainty. Federal agencies including the Department of Justice, the Office of Management and Budget, and civil rights enforcement bodies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs began reassessing guidance, compliance expectations, and enforcement priorities. That shift, combined with private litigation and sustained media and political attention, created a climate of scrutiny that caused many employers to pause, pull back, or quietly sunset DEI initiatives altogether.
Since then, one question has come up again and again in conversations with HR leaders, legal teams, and executives:
What is actually allowed now?
The concern is understandable.
Organizations have watched peers face litigation, enforcement actions, and public criticism related to certain DEI programs. Slowing down to reassess risk was a rational response. No employer wants to invest in initiatives that could unintentionally create legal exposure.
But here is the critical point that got lost in the noise: the work of building fair, respectful, and inclusive workplaces never became unlawful.
What changed was not employers’ legal obligations to prevent discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and bias. Those duties remain firmly rooted in federal, state, and local law. What changed is how that work must be framed, implemented, and supported to withstand heightened scrutiny.
The risk today is not promoting inclusion itself. The risk lies in poorly designed programs, imprecise language, and initiatives that are not clearly tied to lawful business objectives such as equal opportunity, risk mitigation, and workplace conduct standards.
This is where employment law and workplace culture meet, and where clarity matters most. Employers getting this right are focusing less on labels and more on legally sound behaviors. They are grounding their efforts in compliance, fairness, consistency, and respect for all employees.
These employers are moving forward with confidence, not fear. Let’s explore what this looks like.
The DEI Chill: A Brief Look Back at What Changed
From an employment law perspective, the concern was never about fairness, respect, or inclusion. The concern was about how initiatives were designed, justified, and implemented. Programs that appeared to rely on quotas, preferential treatment, or exclusion based on protected characteristics drew legal scrutiny, while lawful and longstanding obligations to prevent discrimination and harassment were often conflated with those higher-risk approaches.
The result was a chilling effect. Employers became cautious. Some became fearful. Others overcorrected, pulling back not only from problematic practices, but from efforts that were entirely lawful and, in many cases, legally protective.
What Employers Got Wrong About the Shift
One of the biggest misconceptions we have seen is the belief that DEI itself became unlawful. It did not.
What changed was the tolerance for poorly designed programs that were not grounded in core employment law principles. In many cases, DEI had been treated as a stand-alone initiative rather than as an extension of long-standing compliance obligations, including equal employment opportunity, anti-discrimination laws, and harassment prevention.
From a legal perspective, the approaches that triggered risk were not about inclusion goals, but about execution. Programs drew scrutiny when they relied on rigid classifications, unclear or inconsistent criteria for employment decisions, or practices that appeared to advantage or disadvantage employees based on protected characteristics rather than job-related factors. Others lacked clear documentation, business justification, or alignment with existing policies, creating ambiguity about how decisions were being made and enforced.
Another common mistake was assuming that stepping away from DEI meant stepping away from culture work entirely. That assumption created its own risk. When organizations stopped talking about fairness, respect, and accountability, workplace issues did not disappear. They simply went unaddressed, increasing exposure to the very claims employers were trying to avoid.
What Is Drawing Legal Scrutiny and What Is Not
In the current environment, enforcement agencies, courts, and plaintiffs’ attorneys are not examining whether employers value inclusion. They are examining how employment decisions are made, justified, and communicated.
From an employment law perspective, certain types of DEI-related practices are more likely to raise concern because they blur the line between inclusion goals and decision-making criteria.
Practices More Likely to Draw Legal Scrutiny
Programs tend to attract attention when they:
• Rely on rigid classifications or quotas tied to protected characteristics, rather than flexible, job-related criteria
• Lack clear, objective standards for hiring, promotion, compensation, or development decisions
• Appear to condition opportunities or benefits on race, gender, or other protected traits rather than skills, experience, or performance
• Use broad or imprecise language that suggests exclusion, preference, or outcome guarantees without legal context
• Operate outside existing compliance frameworks, with little documentation, inconsistent application, or unclear ownership
• Position DEI as a corrective measure rather than as a risk-mitigation or workplace conduct strategy
In many cases, the issue is not intent, but ambiguity. When programs are poorly defined or loosely implemented, they invite assumptions about how decisions are being made, and that uncertainty creates legal exposure.
What Employment Lawyers Are Advising Now
At the heart of current employment law guidance is a clear distinction employers need to understand. The safest path forward is not abandoning inclusion work, but grounding it in approaches that are legally defensible, operationally useful, and aligned with existing employment law obligations.
What draws legal scrutiny is not the presence of DEI-related efforts, but whether programs appear to substitute ideology for lawful process. What protects employers is clarity, consistency, and adherence to established legal standards governing fair treatment, equal opportunity, and workplace conduct. When inclusion efforts reinforce, rather than replace, employment law fundamentals, they remain not only permissible, but prudent.
Focus on behaviors, not labels.
From a legal standpoint, employers are on firm ground when expectations are tied to conduct rather than identity. Behavioral standards such as respectful communication, appropriate decision-making, and accountability apply to all employees and can be enforced consistently. This reduces ambiguity and helps demonstrate that workplace decisions are based on actions and performance, not protected characteristics.
Build skills, not slogans.
Training that develops concrete workplace skills is easier to justify and defend than messaging built around broad concepts. Teaching managers how to give feedback, listen effectively, document concerns, and address issues early directly supports compliance with anti-discrimination, harassment prevention, and retaliation laws. Skills-based training also creates measurable outcomes, which matters when employers are asked to explain how programs operate in practice.
Anchor everything in fairness, consistency, and respect.
These are not aspirational values. They are legal principles. Fair and consistent application of policies is central to defending employment decisions. Respectful treatment reduces risk by lowering the likelihood of complaints and escalation. When initiatives are explicitly tied to these principles, they reinforce obligations employers already have under the law.
In practice, this means shifting away from abstract DEI language and toward concrete workplace expectations that apply to everyone. It means reinforcing policies and practices already required under employment law rather than introducing parallel programs that feel disconnected from day-to-day operations.
Most importantly, it means recognizing that culture and compliance are not competing priorities. When done correctly, they are mutually reinforcing.
What Employers Can Still Do Safely and Confidently
Even in today’s environment, there is significant room for employers to strengthen culture while mitigating risk. In fact, recent legal developments have reinforced that well-designed training and prevention efforts remain not only permissible, but encouraged.
Harassment prevention remains essential.
Creating a workplace free from harassment is not optional. It is a core legal obligation and one of the most defensible culture investments an organization can make. Effective harassment prevention training does more than satisfy statutory requirements. It sets clear expectations for respectful behavior, reinforces reporting pathways, and helps employers identify and address issues before they escalate into claims.
Workplace belonging is still relevant.
Belonging is not about preferential treatment or outcomes. It is about ensuring employees feel respected, heard, and able to contribute. Training focused on listening, communication, and collaboration supports inclusion in ways that align with employment law and apply universally, without crossing legal lines.
Manager skill-building matters more than ever.
Most employment law risk stems from day-to-day management behavior. Teaching managers how to give feedback, address conflict, document concerns, and make fair, consistent decisions reduces legal exposure while improving employee experience. These are practical, defensible skills that directly support compliance.
Consistency is the strongest protection.
Clear policies, applied consistently, remain the foundation of legally sound culture work. Training plays a critical role in ensuring those policies are understood and followed across the organization, reducing ambiguity and strengthening defensibility.
Trust and psychological safety are essential.
Policies and training only work when employees feel safe using them. Trust and psychological safety encourage early reporting, open communication, and problem-solving before issues escalate into formal complaints or legal claims. This does not mean lowering standards or avoiding accountability. It means creating an environment where employees believe concerns will be taken seriously, handled fairly, and addressed without retaliation. Training that reinforces respectful communication, clear reporting pathways, and consistent management behavior helps build that trust, strengthening both workplace culture and legal defensibility.
Importantly, some jurisdictions have taken affirmative steps to clarify that training and prevention efforts focused on conduct, safety, and respectful workplaces are not only allowed, but encouraged as risk-reduction tools.
For example, recent legislation such as California’s SB 303 underscores the continued importance of proactive training and prevention strategies that support lawful, respectful work environments without relying on quotas or preferential treatment.
The message from lawmakers and enforcement agencies has been consistent: employers are expected to prevent harm, set clear expectations, and act early. Doing so thoughtfully and lawfully is not a liability. It is protection.
The Future of Culture Work Is Not on Pause
Despite the headlines, culture work is not optional. Employees still expect fairness. Regulators still expect compliance. Courts still evaluate how organizations prevent and respond to workplace issues.
The employers who will succeed in this next phase are not the ones waiting for clarity from the outside. They are the ones building it internally through thoughtful policies, effective training, and leadership that understands both people and the law.
Compliance is not about doing the minimum. It is about creating workplaces where problems are addressed early and trust is maintained.
How SHIFT Evolved Without Abandoning Its Values
SHIFT HR Compliance Training was founded by employment attorneys. That foundation has always shaped how we approach workplace culture and compliance.
As the DEI landscape shifted, we did not step away from the work of building fair, respectful workplaces. Instead, we refined how that work is framed and delivered. Our focus remains what employment law supports, what employers are required to do, and what actually reduces risk in practice.
SHIFT courses emphasize practical skills, clear behavioral expectations, and real-world scenarios. We help organizations strengthen communication, accountability, and respectful conduct without relying on language or frameworks that introduce unnecessary legal uncertainty.
This approach allows employers to move forward with clarity and confidence, rather than fear.
Not Sure What’s Still Safe For Your Organization? Let’s Talk.
SHIFT works with employers to assess current practices, identify potential areas of risk, and recommend training that aligns with today’s legal landscape.
If you are unsure how to move forward, we are here to help.
Contact us to start the conversation.
Frequently Asked Questions Organizations Are Asking Their Lawyers Right Now
Is DEI illegal now?
No. Certain practices have faced legal challenges, but fairness, respect, and equal opportunity remain foundational to employment law.
Should employers eliminate all DEI programs?
Most employers benefit from recalibrating rather than eliminating culture initiatives, focusing on legally defensible practices.
What type of training is safest right now?
Training that emphasizes behavior, communication, harassment prevention, and consistent decision-making is both effective and defensible.
How can managers support inclusion without risk?
By applying policies consistently, listening actively, and addressing issues early and professionally.
Why does lawyer-led training matter now?
Because it ensures culture initiatives align with current legal standards and real-world enforcement trends.
Disclaimer
This post was prepared by SHIFT for informational purposes only. SHIFT has made every effort to offer current and accurate information to our users. Additionally, this post may contain references to certain laws and regulations that may change over time and should be interpreted only in light of particular circumstances.
Summary
One year after the executive orders, legal challenges, and heightened scrutiny that slowed many corporate DEI efforts, employers are still navigating uncertainty. The path forward is not about abandoning culture work, but about approaching it with greater legal clarity and intention.
• Building fair, respectful, and inclusive workplaces never became unlawful, but how those efforts are framed and implemented now matters more than ever.
• Behavior-based, skill-focused training grounded in employment law principles remains the most defensible approach.
• Harassment prevention, manager development, and consistent policy enforcement continue to be critical risk-reduction tools.
• Employment lawyer insight helps employers distinguish between higher-risk initiatives and lawful, effective culture work.
• SHIFT provides practical, legally grounded training designed for today’s regulatory and enforcement landscape.
