#equal employment opportunities

[daisiesonafield-blog]

Link to original

[thedialoguedilemma]

President Donald Trump signed an executive order rolling back the Equal Employment Opportunity executive order signed by President Lyndon B Johnson that was a key provision following the Civil Rights Act of 1965

The order had prohibited employment discrimination in federal hiring based on race, religion, and gender within the federal workplace

Donald Trump is in the process of rolling back 65 years worth of progress within Civil Rights.

[mindfulmuse88]

Unbiased: Did Trump repeal the Equal Employment Opportunity Act?

Disclaimer: I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Everything is unbiased and factual. Firstly, a president cannot unilaterally evoke a law. There is a lot of misinformation out there, so let's get into it.

Obviously, President Trump aims to dismantle DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives within the federal government and reinstate a merit-based hiring system. To do this, he signed an executive order rolling back several older ones, including a 1965 order signed by President Johnson.

That 1965 order tasked the Secretary of Labor with ensuring that the federal government does not discriminate against employees or applicants based on race, creed, color, or national origin, while also requiring affirmative action to prevent discrimination. Over time, amendments added protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.

However, this executive order is not the same as the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which Congress passed later to expand workplace protections. A president cannot overturn a law—only Congress can. This means the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act is still in effect, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

The concern arises because the 1965 executive order was considered a foundation for the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. However, revoking the executive order does not revoke the law that followed. In fact, Trump's executive order explicitly stated:

"Long-standing federal civil rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equal opportunity for all Americans."

Trump argued that modern DEI programs have led to race- and sex-based preferences that go against the principle of equal treatment under the law. His position—whether one agrees or not—is that these programs have undermined civil rights laws by favoring certain groups rather than ensuring equal opportunity for all.

That said, removing DEI programs does not mean discrimination is now allowed. The Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and other federal protections remain in place. It is still unlawful to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or national origin.

The real issue is misinformation. Some media outlets have falsely suggested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Act has been revoked—this is simply untrue. The law remains intact, as do federal protections against discrimination. What Trump’s executive order did was end DEI programs, not repeal civil rights laws.

So, to be clear:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Act still exists.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 still exists.

Workplace discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity is still illegal.

Trump’s executive order ended federal DEI programs—it did NOT revoke anti-discrimination laws.

Let’s all be on the same page with the facts.

[bitchesgetriches]

This isn’t really something that happened to me, but I want to know if it’s even legal. So a classmate was signing up for a summer job (for context we’re both high schoolers) and the job wanted to know how much money she had. like. stocks and shit. Are they allowed to ask that??? The teacher she was asking (it was first bell so that’s why I was there) said to not answer it but I don’t think it’s exactly very legal, is it?

Ah, a simple question with a complex answer!

Strictly speaking, in most states employers CAN LEGALLY ask for both how much your assets are worth (how much money, investments, property you have) AND how much you are paid at a current or former job.

HOWEVER... they cannot legally discriminate against you based on your answer. But according to the federal laws of Equal Employment Opportunity, it's incredibly difficult to prove that you were discriminated against in this way.

ALSO: many states are now making it illegal to ask both those questions, which is great.

The teacher was right: if you can avoid answering the question, JUST DON'T ANSWER. Here's more advice:

What To Do When You're Asked About Your Salary Requirements in a Job Interview 

10 Questions You Should Never Be Asked in a Job Interview 

Did we just help you out? Tip us!

[scribeofmorpheus]

Just learned Trump revoked the Equality Act of 1972 [The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972] and the white house correspondence made it out to be like he was tackling "inequality" by doing away with DEI barriers... but really he was just making it easier to discriminate against LGBTQ+, immigrants and women for job positions they are qualified for. And he's stating that equality will be based on merit. tell me, since colonial settling, who has had the most "merit" according to history--who can afford to? US politics is in the gutter rn. And the tiktok stint? Appoint people to congress/parliament to approve the tiktok ban, get said court case shelved for most of Biden's term, and then *magically* reinstate a censored/monitored tiktok the day before inauguration? with a thank you message displayed for all to see? jesus christ. the psyops are egregious.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dave Jamieson at HuffPost:

President Donald Trump’s attempt to abolish the U.S. Agency for International Development has stunned its employees and drawn outrage among Democrats on Capitol Hill. But it’s one of many brazen attacks on independent federal agencies as he seeks to expand executive power during his first days in office. On Jan. 27, the new president ousted a sitting Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as two Democratic commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He eliminated a quorum at both bipartisan bodies, making them unable to carry out their normal duties. Then, on Thursday, Trump tried to boot the Democratic chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, who said she had received a letter from the president ”purporting to remove me.” “There’s a legal way to replace FEC commissioners,” said the chairwoman, Ellen L. Weintraub. “This isn’t it.” With Senate approval, any president is free to fill out his Cabinet as he sees fit. But Trump is taking an axe to walls that have long stood between the White House and independent executive agencies that are supposed to operate free from presidential meddling. The NLRB and EEOC officials were in the middle of their congressionally mandated terms when Trump fired them without cause. The removals flew in the face of the statute as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent and should dash any notion that Trump might act with a degree of restraint in his second term.

[...] The labor board usually has five members, with three from one party and two from the other. Their staggered five-year terms mean a Democratic majority can run into a Republican presidency, and vice versa, until one of the seats opens up and the president can install a new member. Due to two vacancies, the board held a 2-1 Democratic majority when Trump was inaugurated. It still had a quorum, by one member, to make rulings. Close observers did not expect Trump to try to fire one of the Democrats since he could achieve a GOP majority simply by nominating two Republicans and getting them through a Republican-controlled Senate. [...] With just two members and no quorum, the NLRB cannot adjudicate cases where an employer or union has filed an appeal. The board won’t be operating until either a judge reinstates Wilcox — she has filed a lawsuit arguing her firing was illegal — or Trump and Senate Republicans install new members, which they may be in no rush to do. Trump has left the EEOC in a similar dysfunctional state. The agency, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, has stressed that it’s still fielding complaints and that its judges are hearing cases involving workers who believe their civil rights have been violated. However, it only has two commissioners —one Republican and one Democrat — who would be unable to issue new rules or policies until Trump installs new members. [...] The independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has also found itself in the White House’s crosshairs. On Saturday, Trump’s acting CFPB director ordered employees to halt their work and closed down the building, derailing an agency that protects consumers from predatory financial practices. Musk had previously said he wanted to “delete” the bureau. Sen. Chris Van Hollen said Trump and Musk aren’t trying to make the government more “efficient”— they’re simply going after regulatory agencies they dislike. “We are in dangerous territory because we see this sort of serial lawbreaking by Donald Trump and Elon Musk,” Van Hollen told HuffPost Monday. “It has nothing to do with efficiency... This is all about installing their cronies in key positions in government and shutting down agencies that help protect the American people.” Trump’s firings at independent agencies may be headed to the Supreme Court in a battle over the so-called unitary executive theory, which holds that the president has sole authority over executive branch agencies. The court’s conservative supermajority has generally taken a broad view of presidential power and could bless Trump’s takeover of bodies like the NLRB.

The Trump-Musk-Vance axis of evil are running roughshod over the independence of federal agencies to cement a far-right power grab.

See Also:

The Status Kuo (Jay Kuo): Blunting Their Attacks

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

i need the employed people to understand the job market is not like it was when they were unemployed.

[viaticpancakes]

This is a clear effort to return to a pre-civil rights era.

[amasec]

more bad things are happening

Waiting with baited breath, Runa stared into his unseeing eyes, panic continuing to clutch at her chest. It clawed at the last shreds of her resolve, bubbling beneath her skin. He did not blink; his breathing shallow. Could he still hear her? What would she do if he couldn’t?

Although unfocused, his wide eyes seemed alert – and utterly, helplessly terrified.

“Heinrix.” She exhaled firmly and pinched his cheek in frustration. It was funny, really – if he’d possessed even a semblance of control over his faculties, he would’ve rolled his eyes at her movement and caught her hand within his own, clicking his tongue at her mischievousness. But no; he’d allowed her to do it, remaining as still as a statue as she poked at his frozen skin, and all at once Runa felt her stomach begin to twist with the grief that had begun to course through her veins like hot poison. She let out a soft hiccup as she moved to embrace him instead, pulling his head to rest against her chest as she ran her fingers through stiff, frozen hair. The bitter taste of regret rose like bile in her throat as his chest stuttered for breath. She was too late.

“Don’t make me do this on my own,” she whispered, her voice unsteady. Defeated. The quiet plea of her request dissipated into the frozen air around them, her words barely audible as she begged the God-Emperor for mercy. She held him ever closer, both arms clutching his head to her chest whilst she made an attempt to remain calm. Perhaps if she’d been a better, more diligent servant of the God-Emperor, He wouldn’t have reached for the life of the man who deserved a far less cruel fate; a man who had dedicated his life to serving the Golden Throne – a man whom she’d become irrevocably attached to. Praying had yet to work for the voidborn, but Runa found herself murmuring an old, familiar invocation regardless, pressing her cheek against her Interrogator’s frost-encrusted hair and squeezing her eyes shut.

Please. You’ve taken everyone I ever held dear. Why must I be forsaken so?

[wearylaurels]

Dude…..let’s kill the horse. I’m so tired.

[subtlesolitude-tailoredtaste]

Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972

[mindfulmuse88]

Unbiased: The DOD says no federal resources will no longer be used for "special observances" (Women's History Month, Pride Month, and more)

Disclaimer: I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Everything is unbiased and factual.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has announced that it will no longer allocate official resources, including man-hours, to host cultural awareness month celebrations. Their statement reads in part:

"Going forward, DOD components and military departments will not use official resources—including man-hours—to host celebrations or events related to cultural awareness months. This includes National African American/Black History Month, Women's History Month, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, Pride Month, National Hispanic Heritage Month, National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and National American Indian Heritage Month. *Service members and civilians may still attend these events in an unofficial capacity outside of duty hours. However, installations, units, and offices are instead encouraged to honor the valor and achievements of military heroes from all backgrounds while focusing on the *character of their service rather than immutable characteristics."

Additionally, a memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)—a division within the DOD—has been circulating online, indicating that the agency will also pause its involvement in these observances in line with executive orders banning DEI initiatives. The memo states:

"Effective immediately and until further notice, the Defense Intelligence Agency will pause all activities and events related to agency special emphasis programs. Additionally, special observances hosted throughout the year by the command elect and special observances committee are also paused."

The memo further lists the affected observances, including Black History Month, Women's History Month, Holocaust Remembrance Day, Pride Month, and National Disability Employment Awareness Month. However, it clarifies that this does not apply to federal holidays such as Martin Luther King Jr. Day or Juneteenth.

Why is the DOD taking this action?

This decision ties back to two executive orders signed by former President Trump:

"Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing"

"Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions"

These orders put a hold on government spending for all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, giving the administration time to reassess what, if anything, should receive funding in this area. Since hosting celebrations or observances could be classified as DEI-related spending, they must be paused to comply with these orders. Whether this pause will become permanent remains unclear.

What about Black History Month?

Many have asked whether Black History Month will still be officially recognized. On February 1, 2025, President Trump signed a proclamation acknowledging Black History Month, continuing the tradition upheld by every president since 1996. The proclamation reads:

"Now, therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim February 2025 as National Black History Month. I call upon public officials, educators, librarians, and all Americans to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities."

However, the use of government funds for Black History Month observances remains a gray area. The executive order on DEI spending states:

"Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great."

What qualifies as "making America great" is subject to interpretation by the administration. This is one of the key justifications the Defense Intelligence Agency cited when deciding to pause non-federal observances, including Black History Month.

What happens next?

At this point, the long-term impact remains uncertain. As with many policy shifts, time will tell how this decision will play out across different government agencies. For now, the DOD has made it clear that government resources will not be used to fund these observances, but individuals can still participate on their own time.

[newtsgirl122]

So on today’s episode of “What in the actual fuck”, Equal Opportunity Employment is gone

So what’s your excuse for voting for this piece of shit again?

[destielmemenews]

source 1

source 2

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

On Tuesday, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas announced a set of policy changes inspired by President Donald Trump’s recent anti-trans executive orders, including the derecognition of nonbinary people, the removal of pronoun options from digital workplace tools, and the elimination of materials promoting what she called “gender ideology.” Most alarming, however, was Lucas’ stated top priority: “defend the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single-sex spaces at work,” a signal that she intends to push for a federally backed bathroom ban in private workplaces.

The press release clarifies that Lucas cannot unilaterally rescind prior EEOC guidance from the Biden administration that affirmed protections for transgender people under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These protections stem from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which determined that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is unlawful in the workplace. However, many conservative policymakers and activists have pushed to exclude gender identity from these protections, ignoring established legal precedent. Despite these legal constraints, the release states Lucas’ intent to push for the revocation of these protections and to establish transgender bathroom bans in workplaces. Lucas echoed these arguments in Tuesday’s announcement, stating, “It is neither harassment nor discrimination for a business to draw distinctions between the sexes in providing single-sex bathrooms or other similar facilities which implicate these significant privacy and safety interests. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County does not demand otherwise: the Court explicitly stated that it did ‘not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.’”

Lucas has been a staunch Trump ally since his first term, having been appointed to the EEOC in 2020. Throughout her tenure, she has consistently opposed measures she labels as “DEI,” particularly those supporting transgender women’s inclusion in women’s spaces. Initially, her focus was on what she framed as threats to “religious liberty,” advocating for individuals with “religious objections” to COVID-19 prevention measures during the height of the pandemic. However, by late 2022, she had shifted her attention toward anti-trans politics, aligning with conservative judges to oppose transgender people’s right to use restrooms that match their gender identity.

[...] These rollbacks on transgender rights mark only the beginning of the Trump administration’s broader assault on transgender individuals. Less than two weeks into his second term, Trump issued an executive order targeting gender-affirming care for minors, attempting to strip transgender youth of access to life-saving medical treatment. He also reinstated a ban on transgender service members, branding their “lifestyle” as incompatible with military service and claiming they lack “honor, truthfulness, and discipline.” The fight over transgender rights is far from over. Trump’s executive orders will face immediate legal challenges, and activists across the country are already mobilizing in response. 

The EEOC pushing for a ban on trans people using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity in private business is an utter insult to common sense.