Goldman’s Women-Only Program: DEI or Discrimination Risk?

Goldman Sachs 100000 Women Online Program 2025 clearly has noble aspirations of providing educational training to women to succeed in business. However, are those same noble pursuits legally problematic and a hotbed of exposure to Goldman? Stated otherwise, doesn't Goldman have exposure to a reverse discrimination lawsuit brought by a male who is prevented from obtaining this free education because of his sex / gender given that the program expressly limits its availability to just women, as follows: "open to women entrepreneurs from around the world." For all companies, doesn't providing educational programs to ONLY women violate Title VII or IX? Isn't this a prime example of a sex / gender-conscious affirmative action DEI educational program that SCOTUS recently ruled as discriminatory, in 2023, when it struck Harvard's and UNC's affirmative action policies that tied educational admissions advantages to the race of applicants? 

To be fair, the 2023 SCOTUS decision of Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College was about race-consciousness, under Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause, whereas the Goldman Sachs' training is about gender-conscious issues under Title VII and Title IX. However, these anti-discrimination statutes share a lot in common, and the 2023 decision provides some tea-leaves as to how future Title VII and Title IX decisions will go when faced with reverse discrimination claims involving affirmative action. 

As to Title IX, the statute prohibits sex discrimination in education and is the closest corrolary to Title VI, which prohibits race, color, and national origin discrimination in education. However, unlike Title VI, Title IX expressly allows education to be limited to one sex. Nonetheless, the Goldman program is run by Coursera, which is not so limited. Therefore, that exception likely won't save Goldman. Regardless, Goldman is likely saved from a Title IX claim because such a claim is only applicable to recipients of federal funding and it is unlikely that this Goldman program receives federal funding (albeit, this is unknown, but speculated). 

As to Title VII, the statute prohibits sex discrimination (amongst other protected classes) in employment. Under this statute, Goldman would only have problems if an employee, or potential employee, could demonstrate a relationship between Goldman Sachs 100000 Women Online Program 2025 and the availability, terms, conditions, and/or privileges of employment. Stated otherwise, a claim would be dependent on whether receiving the training results in Goldman's employees or prospective employees receiving a corresponding employment benefit? If so, under Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, an employee, or a potential employee, advancing a Title VII claim would likely prevail because they would show "some harm" as a result of their denial from participating based on sex / gender. So, let's evaluate Goldman's Program with the presumption that an employee or prospective employee can benefit from having participated, because it's likely a benefit when interviewing to have taken Goldman's education.

Under Title VII, before the 2023 SCOTUS decision of Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, the 100000 Women Online Program would be permissible based on precedent from the 1979 SCOTUS case United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber where the Court expressly ruled that a voluntary race-conscious training program was permissible if it was established only until, under that case's facts, the percentage of black craft workers in the plant was commensurate with the percentage of blacks in the local labor force given that the purposes of the plan mirrored those of Title VII and the plan did not unnecessarily trammel the interests of white employees, it was a temporary measure, it was not intended to maintain racial balance, and it was simply designed to eliminate a manifest racial imbalance. Therefore, we wonder if Goldman's program has statistical data with such an aspirational goal. We further wonder if the program was designed to sunset. Finally, we wonder how men are being disadvantaged at Goldman who did not have the opportunity to participate in this program. 

Nonetheless, the 2023 case of Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College changed all that in providing that "the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual - not on the basis of race." Likewise, qualification to the Goldman Program should be based on individual experience, not on their gender / sex. On top of that, and as previously alluded to, Goldman's Program does not state any measurable objectives or sunset as to its availability. Yes, it is not subject to Title IX because Goldman is not a recipient of federal financial assistance, but it is subject to Title VII and Goldman may have exposure here. That all said, Goldman is playing with fire in advancing this program in 2025, post-Students for Fair Admission, and any employer offering educational opportunities to employees or potential employees should similarly proceed with caution. Moreover, and beyond education, these same risks apply with employers offering Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) that are based on shared demographics rather than just engaging in the safe option of Affinity Groups that are based on shared interest, like sports. This is 2025 and offering program access based on participant demographics is not smart business.  

Employers - don’t get burned by well-intentioned DEI or training programs. Before launching initiatives that limit access based on demographics, consult with the attorneys at Lieb at Law, P.C. to ensure compliance and protect your business from reverse discrimination claims.

*Attorney Advertising

Are Company DEI Programs Going to Get Them Sued for Reverse Discrimination?

This past month, the Department of Justice issued guidance on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) for Funding Recipients, but every employer and employee (regardless of government funding) should take notice of this guidance because it explains a lot of acts that give rise to a reverse discrimination lawsuit and many employees now seem to have a good case. 

Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics like race, sex, and religion, and if you object to a policy you believe is discriminatory, you are legally protected from retaliation. The DOJ’s new guidance clarifies that all discrimination, including “reverse discrimination” is illegal, even when done with good intentions under a DEI label. 

This means that policies giving preferential treatment based on race or sex in hiring, promotions, or contracting are likely unlawful. Watch out for “diverse slate” mandates or quotas in hiring, as these are specifically called out by the DOJ as problematic. 

The government is also scrutinizing seemingly neutral terms like “cultural competence” when they are just used as a substitute for race. Notably, DEI training that segregates employees by race or promotes stereotypes can create a hostile environment and violate federal law. The main takeaway is clear: workplace policies must ensure equal opportunity for everyone, without exception, and calling a discriminatory policy DEI does not protect it from constituting actionable discrimination.

Hey White Boy, SCOTUS Protects You - Reverse Discrimination Claims Simplified

There are no distinctions between bringing a reverse discrimination claim and a discrimination claim under the law anymore according to a unanimous SCOTUS Decision in Ames v. Ohio in an opinion by Justice Jackson. 

Previously, many courts required members of a majority group (white men) to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard when suing for employment discrimination under Title VII, called background circumstances. 

No more and anyone thinking that they didn't have a case because they were in the majority, should reconsider. Remember, you have 300 days to file a charge with EEOC from the discriminatory event if you are in a state like NY (other states are sometimes 180 days) + state law discrimination claims in NY can be made for 3 years regardless of EEOC filing. 

As Justice Jackson wrote, "[t]he question in this case is whether, to satisfy that prima facie burden, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.'... We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs."

Therefore, we are again reminded, as Justice Thomas wrote in his concurrence, that "Title VII bars employment discrimination against 'any individual' “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Interestly, Justice Thomas also reminds us that White Boys aren't the majority by stating that "[w]omen, for example, make up the majority in the United States as a whole." 

Anyway, there is now a clear path for reverse discrimination cases in the USA. Plus, we predicted this when teaching the CLE for Lawline, Reverse Discrimination: McDonnell Douglas in Trump's America.

Oh, and Justice Thomas predicts and argues why McDonnell Douglas is flawed beyond repair to prove disparate treatment discrimination through circumstantial evidence. 

This opinion is a must read for anyone that works in HR in Corporate America as well as all small business owners and managers. 

EEOC Targets Reverse Discrimination for Anti-American Bias - International Staffing Agencies Be Warned!

On 2/19/2025, EEOC Announced a Crackdown on Anti-American Bias with a target of those engaging in unlawful national origin discrimination, including employers and staffing agencies. By emphasizing staffing agencies in its Press Release, it appears that EEOC is targeting staffing agency that focus on foreign workers and they should lawyer-up immediately. 

What You Need to Know

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced a renewed focus on combating national origin discrimination, with a particular emphasis on protecting American workers from unlawful hiring preferences that favor non-American employees. Acting Chair Andrea Lucas made it clear that the agency will be increasing enforcement efforts against employers, staffing agencies, and other entities that engage in illegal hiring practices that disadvantage American workers. Read the full EEOC press release here.

Summary of the EEOC’s Announcement

The EEOC is intensifying enforcement against employers that unlawfully prefer non-American workers over American workers, citing violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The agency aims to deter illegal migration and curb the abuse of legal immigration programs by holding employers accountable for discriminatory hiring practices.

What Employers Need to Know

Employers should immediately review their hiring, recruitment, and staffing policies to ensure compliance with Title VII’s prohibition on national origin discrimination. Common illegal practices include:

• Preferring non-American workers over American workers due to perceived cost savings or ease of exploitation.
• Hiring practices that intentionally exclude U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents in favor of visa holders.
• Making employment decisions based on biased stereotypes about work ethic, productivity, or compliance.
• Complying with client demands for a foreign workforce over qualified American workers.

The EEOC has made it clear that these discriminatory practices will not be tolerated, and businesses found to be in violation may face significant legal and financial penalties.

What Employees Need to Know

Employees, whether American or non-American, are protected under federal law from national origin discrimination. If you suspect that an employer is favoring foreign workers over qualified American workers—or engaging in any other form of national origin discrimination—you have the right to file a complaint with the EEOC within 300 days (in NY, but may be 180 days elsewhere) of the discriminatory action. Employees are protected from retaliation for reporting discrimination, and the EEOC can investigate claims and, if necessary, give you a right to sue letter so you can sue in Federal Court to recover lost wages, emotional support damages, and your attorneys' fees.