Skip to content

Menu

ChannelsPublishersSubscribe
LexBlog, Inc. logo
LexBlog, Inc. logo
ProductsSub-MenuBlogsPortalsTwentySyndicationMicrositesResource Center
Join
Search
Close
Join the Movement. Blog 4 Good

NAACP Seeks Injunction of EO Banning Implicit Bias

By Trina Fairley Barlow, Peter J. Eyre, Kris D. Meade, Preston Pugh, Rebecca Springer & Jillian Ambrose
October 30, 2020
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn

The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. has filed suit on behalf of the National Urban League and the National Fair Housing Alliance in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the lawfulness and validity of Executive Order 13950, Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, issued on September 22, 2020. The EO prohibits the use by federal contractors or subcontractors, and certain federal grantees, of training materials that “inculcate[ ] in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating.” The Department of Labor has since released its own guidance regarding the EO and a Request for Information seeking materials “concerning workplace trainings involving prohibited race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating” and has set up both email and phone hotlines to receive complaints about training that may violate the EO.

The suit names as defendants President Trump, Eugene Scalia in his capacity as Secretary of Labor, and the Department of Labor itself, and identifies the representative class as federal contractors and federal agencies, departments, or divisions that offer or intend to offer workplace training of the type prohibited by the EO. The suit alleges:

  1. An ultra vires action in violation of the First Amendment in the form of viewpoint discrimination;
  2. A violation of the Fifth Amendment, namely that the EO is void for vagueness; and
  3. A violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the EO is unlawful and invalid, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and a preliminary and permanent injunction to stop implementation or enforcement of any part of the EO, as well as costs and fees.

Photo of Trina Fairley Barlow Trina Fairley Barlow
Read more about Trina Fairley BarlowEmail
Photo of Peter J. Eyre Peter J. Eyre
Read more about Peter J. EyreEmail
Photo of Kris D. Meade Kris D. Meade
Read more about Kris D. MeadeEmail
Photo of Rebecca Springer Rebecca Springer
Read more about Rebecca SpringerEmail
Photo of Jillian Ambrose Jillian Ambrose
Read more about Jillian AmbroseEmail
  • Posted in:
    Administrative, Corporate Compliance
  • Blog:
    Government Contracts Legal Forum
  • Organization:
    Crowell & Moring LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Stay Connected

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers

Company

  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service

Products

  • Products
  • Blogs
  • Portals
  • Twenty
  • Syndication
  • Microsites

Support

  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • The HB Blog
  • The Tax Trotter
  • The Westchester Litigator
  • Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider
  • Law from the East to the West
Copyright © 2021, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By LexBlog