Welcome in, today is Thursday, August sixth, and we begin with a Dentons client alert arguing that federal DEI policy has moved out of executive orders and into the rules themselves. Dentons, in that alert, traces how the federal campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion became regulation. That account starts with Executive Order fourteen one seventy-three, signed in January twenty twenty-five, which revoked the Johnson-era affirmative action requirement for federal contractors. An April twenty twenty-five order then directed agencies to deprioritize disparate-impact enforcement, including under Title Seven. And an order in March of this year requires a clause in every federal contract barring what it terms racially discriminatory DEI activities, with False Claims Act exposure, debarment and termination attached. The part that reads straight through to selection, promotion and pay practices comes next. Per the same alert, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel found the EEOC's disparate-impact framework under Title Seven unconstitutional, in a memorandum opinion dated June ninth. On that read, business necessity drops to a rational-business-purpose showing, background checks and aptitude tests become presumptively job-related, and plaintiffs must tie a disparity to one identified practice rather than to market forces. The alert also notes the EEOC has proposed rescinding EEO-1 reporting, in place since nineteen sixty-six, with employers still obligated to file for twenty twenty-five until any rescission is final. Industry reaction leans cautious on the headline framing, with a recurring point that what is being rescinded sits in agency regulation while the statutory framework stands. Also today, a settlement out of the Justice Department. HRD Canada reports OpenAI and its Washington-based subsidiary Statsig will pay three point two million dollars to resolve government claims that they discriminated against United States workers by preferring holders of temporary employment visas. Per that reporting, the figure splits into one point two million in civil penalties and a two million dollar back-pay fund for affected workers, and follows an investigation by the department's Immigrant and Employee Rights Section, which found the companies violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. The same reporting has the department announcing the deal Tuesday, with a commitment to change recruitment practices. For talent teams, the exposure named here sits upstream of the hiring decision, in sourcing criteria and posting language. Reaction among legal-minded observers leans toward reading the case as a marker of where AI disputes are actually landing, in hiring, workforce and data practices rather than in the models themselves, with regulators applying long-standing employment and immigration doctrine rather than anything AI-specific; some in that group also question whether a penalty of this size changes recruiting behavior at a company of this scale. Separately, the evidentiary structure employers build their discrimination-defense documentation around has held, with a caveat about its future. HR Dive reports the Fifth Circuit again applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, even as a majority of the court appeared open to reconsidering the Supreme Court test. That reporting notes the soundness of the framework has come into question in recent years. Nothing shifts today for employers in the circuit, and the signal is about where the law may go rather than where it currently sits. Employment-law practitioners read the ruling as continuity more than change, and the emphasis in that commentary leans toward the point that plaintiffs still must identify a comparator outside their protected class, and that recent Supreme Court activity has not loosened that threshold. Now, a few more headlines moving the trade today. Kiplinger notes the Bureau of Labor Statistics counted just fifty-seven thousand jobs added in June, well under the one hundred fifteen thousand expected, with the July report due Friday. Following our earlier report on SHRM's insurer suing over the verdict, HR Dive reports SHRM has asked the Tenth Circuit for a new trial or a significantly reduced award, arguing the Colorado jury was improperly instructed and, in the association's words, inflamed by prejudice. Personnel Today reports the EHRC code of practice for services, public functions and associations took effect yesterday, and continues to attract challenges. And finally, HRD Canada makes the case that forever layoffs are here, with employers spreading cuts across months rather than one announcement, and experts in that account saying the toll on the workforce adds up.