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
