This really didn't happen over here in Europe at all. That was mostly a US thing. Here it just faded out as it couldn't be leveraged.
At our place, it did not influence hiring decisions other than having a formal DEI position in the org which was disposed of almost immediately when it was seen as a cost and not a benefit.
Trump's threats were international and European businesses and media were very much talking about it at the time. Here's two examples from April 2025, the first is in Swedish:
There's a big difference between suing people for prima facie illegal hiring practices and suing people for holding Grace Hopper celebrations. We probably shouldn't conflate them. Your links, as best as I can tell, are about the former sort of activity - hiring or paying people differently on the basis of protected characteristics.
You understand that none of these companies believe the merits of why they are settling?
They are settling because, like the law firms Trump suborned, they didn't want the MAGA rage; especially in the case of Texas, where Trump may (correctly as it goes) think Paxton is a disgusting slug of a man, but still vocally supports him.
The legal system was just the venue. All of this is bullshit corporate spinelessness in the face of threats without merit, especially in firms like Deloitte, who do not want their M&A interfered with.
Harvard lost due to obvious "anti" racist discrimination. It still seems to discriminate against whites and asians and in favour of blacks, but not as heavily as it used to.
Every statement from company officials such as "we only employ women" or "toxic males", can be used as evidence at court. It is very difficult to prove bias from vague sanitized corporate language, direct "activist" statements make proving such bias very easy. For example recent lawsuit with IBM!
But I highly doubt most companies were saying that or implying it. There's more to DEI than having minority quotas. Would DEI practices such as campaigns to encourage more men to go into nursing, midwifery or teaching be targeted too?
There's a case going through the courts for Red Hat right now where they based managerial bonuses on how diverse their teams were, which reportedly led to them pushing out white males.
This really didn't happen over here in Europe at all. That was mostly a US thing. Here it just faded out as it couldn't be leveraged.
At our place, it did not influence hiring decisions other than having a formal DEI position in the org which was disposed of almost immediately when it was seen as a cost and not a benefit.
Trump's threats were international and European businesses and media were very much talking about it at the time. Here's two examples from April 2025, the first is in Swedish:
* https://riks.se/nyheter/wallenberg%C3%A4gda-ericsson-tonar-n...
* https://swedenherald.com/article/ericsson-ceo-explains-dropp...
Here's one example.
Yeah it was wearing off by then anyway. So they got to blame it on Trump I think.
It just silently evaporated here during a "restructure".
2 replies →
Source for _legally_ ?
(Legally as in, using the legal system)
DOJ sued Deloitte over DEI programs, they ended up settling for $21.5 million: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/deloitte-pay-215-mi...
Texas Attorney General declared DEI initiatives unconstitutional in a legal opinion: https://www.gibsondunn.com/texas-attorney-general-declares-p...
Several state Attorneys General sent legal threats to 20 major law firms over DEI: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-led-states-deman...
Texas Attorney General warned major banks that DEI programs violate feduciary duty: https://today.westlaw.com/Document/Ibce2fdc5dcec11efb708bbad...
You can add IBM to the list. They paid a settlement for their practice of tying executive bonuses to quotas: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ibm-pays-17-million-resolve-a...
There's a big difference between suing people for prima facie illegal hiring practices and suing people for holding Grace Hopper celebrations. We probably shouldn't conflate them. Your links, as best as I can tell, are about the former sort of activity - hiring or paying people differently on the basis of protected characteristics.
1 reply →
You understand that none of these companies believe the merits of why they are settling?
They are settling because, like the law firms Trump suborned, they didn't want the MAGA rage; especially in the case of Texas, where Trump may (correctly as it goes) think Paxton is a disgusting slug of a man, but still vocally supports him.
The legal system was just the venue. All of this is bullshit corporate spinelessness in the face of threats without merit, especially in firms like Deloitte, who do not want their M&A interfered with.
3 replies →
Don't know about corporates, but Harvard was sued[0] for DEI-esque discrimination.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...
Harvard lost due to obvious "anti" racist discrimination. It still seems to discriminate against whites and asians and in favour of blacks, but not as heavily as it used to.
Edit: forgot to to write "and asians".
Every statement from company officials such as "we only employ women" or "toxic males", can be used as evidence at court. It is very difficult to prove bias from vague sanitized corporate language, direct "activist" statements make proving such bias very easy. For example recent lawsuit with IBM!
> "we only employ women"
But I highly doubt most companies were saying that or implying it. There's more to DEI than having minority quotas. Would DEI practices such as campaigns to encourage more men to go into nursing, midwifery or teaching be targeted too?
7 replies →
There's a case going through the courts for Red Hat right now where they based managerial bonuses on how diverse their teams were, which reportedly led to them pushing out white males.
Such should rightfully be illegal.
Companies couldn't hide their blatant racism and sexism behind DEI any longer. Corporates were legally threatened for violating Civil Rights laws.