Eva Perón’s farewell song from “Evita” comes to mind as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP or Agency) loses its authority and prepares to take its final bow. Aligning with the Administration’s efforts to dissolve the agency, OFCCP has continued to send notices to federal contractors.
The 2025 Colorado legislative session concluded on May 7, 2025. This latest session has brought a series of significant updates that are poised to reshape the compliance landscape for employers across the state. Among the enacted bills, several are set to introduce new requirements and labor standards compelling employers to adapt swiftly. The vetoed bills, on the other hand, highlight ongoing debates that may signal future changes.
Below we summarize the major bills affecting employers that were either passed or vetoed by Governor Jared Polis.
Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement, commenced litigation against Rock Snowpark on July 2, 2025, for allegedly retaliating against an employee that posted a series of Bible verses on social media that the Snowpark considered discriminatory against the LGBTQ+ community.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor released their 2026 Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJ) on May 30, 2025, providing valuable information related to the EEOC’s enforcement intentions and the future of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). A CBJ is the annual budget justification materials of a federal agency or a component of a federal agency that are submitted in conjunction with the President’s annual budget submission. The CBJ provides a detailed description of each program and information about how the agency will use funds, including increases and decreases in spending. The EEOC CBJ identifies four enforcement priorities and anticipated investigations into systemic intentional discrimination using the pattern or practice method of proof. Additionally, the EEOC CBJ and the Department of Labor’s Budget in Brief confirm that the OFCCP will be extinguished with its remaining two programs distributed to the EEOC and the Veterans Employment Training Service.
On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Public Affairs issued a press release announcing two technical assistance documents jointly released by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the DOJ. The stated purpose of the technical assistance is to encourage whistleblowers to file discrimination charges with the EEOC relating to unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or practices or, in the case of state and local government employees, with the Department of Justice. It provides employees with instructions on how and where to file a claim of DEI related discrimination, along with descriptions of the types of DEI-related programs and activities that may constitute unlawful DEI under the current Administration’s policies. For employers, the technical guidance offers insight into the types of DEI activities that will be targeted by the Administration.
In previous legal updates, our team analyzed the recent executive order entitled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, which encourages, but does not mandate, that private employers end certain Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices that the order considers “illegal.” Despite the executive branch’s shift in its approach to DEI, the underlying legal framework for private employers has not changed. The same is true for the recent executive order on gender identity entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” While this order introduces significant changes for federal agencies and federal contractors, private employers remain largely unaffected at this time.
In our ever-evolving world, fostering cultural sensitivity is paramount for creating inclusive and respectful work environments and minimizing legal risks. Language plays a crucial role in shaping our perceptions, and unfortunately, some words used in everyday conversation may perpetuate stereotypes and contribute to cultural insensitivity. This Native American Heritage Month, employers should consider abandoning the following words and phrases, and encourage their employees to do the same, in an effort to embrace more inclusive work environments, and mitigate the risk of discrimination claims brought by indigenous members of their workforce.
From Congress’ recently proposed “Dismantle DEI Act of 2024” to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision permitting mandatory diversity training by employers, diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs remain a contentious issue in U.S. politics. In June 2024, attorneys general from 40 states joined one of two dueling letters, reflecting the inconsistent sentiments on this topic across state lines.
While properly implemented DEI programs remain permissible under Title VII and other applicable laws, recent legislation proposed by Senate and House Republicans would seek to eliminate any such programs sponsored or supported by the federal government. On June 12, 2024, twenty-two members of Congress, led by Ohio Senator J.D. Vance (Donald Trump’s vice-presidential candidate in the 2024 election) introduced the Dismantle DEI Act of 2024 (the “Act”). With respect to the Act, Senator Vance stated, “The DEI agenda is a destructive ideology that breeds hatred and racial division. It has no place in our federal government or anywhere else in our society.” The proposed legislation seeks to eliminate all federal DEI programs and funding for federal agencies, contractors which receive federal funding, organizations which receive federal grants, and educational accreditation agencies. Although the Act would not apply to the private sector, the federal government remains the nation’s largest employer and the Act would impact a workforce of over four million employees.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, there has been in increase in litigation challenging employers’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies and practices. In one recent example, however, a conversative panel of judges in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an argument that a mandatory diversity training constituted unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.