A corporate law firm accused of racial discrimination for offering a diversity fellowship program exclusively to law students from underrepresented groups has changed its program to be inclusive of students of all races, as indicated on its website.
Morrison Foerster, headquartered in San Francisco, faced a lawsuit alleging discrimination against non-minority students in the program. The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), founded by conservative activist Edward Blum, known for previous Supreme Court challenges against affirmative action in college admissions, filed the lawsuit. This legal action is part of a broader campaign aimed at dismantling diversity initiatives in the private sector.
Morrison Foerster was one of two law firms facing legal action over their diversity fellowships. The lawsuit claimed that the Keith Wetmore Fellowship for Excellence, Diversity, and Inclusion at the firm “excludes certain applicants based on their skin color.”
Previously, the program, initiated in 2012, described its focus on first-year law students who belonged to “a diverse population that has historically been underrepresented in the legal profession,” including Black, Latino, Native American, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Following the lawsuit, all references to race have been removed from the program’s webpage on Morrison Foerster’s website. This adjustment reflects the uncertainty regarding the fate of such fellowships in the face of legal challenges aimed at applying the Supreme Court’s race-neutral stance on college admissions to the private sector.
The program’s new description recognizes “exceptional first and second-year law students with a demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.” Morrison Foerster has not provided any comments on this change.
The fellowship’s criteria now emphasize an applicant’s “ability to bring a diverse perspective to the firm as a result of your adaptability, cultural fluency, resilience, and life experiences,” as well as their “demonstrated commitment to promoting diversity, inclusion, and accessibility.”
Legal experts suggest that universities and private employers are searching for ways to navigate the legal battle surrounding diversity and inclusion efforts, which have faced increasing resistance. In both academic and corporate settings, institutions are grappling with the challenge of striking a balance between diversity initiatives and legal constraints.
The legal industry has long struggled to increase diversity in its workforce. Despite Black people making up about 14 percent of the U.S. population, less than 5 percent of practicing attorneys are Black. Furthermore, the overall share of ethnic minorities in the legal profession has grown by only 6 percent since 2010, according to the American Bar Association.
Since a Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in college admissions in late June, there has been a surge in legal activity seeking to test the high court’s stance on considering race in employment matters.
Several states’ attorneys general sent a letter to Fortune 100 CEOs, warning that overturning affirmative action could have consequences for corporate diversity and inclusion programs. Conservative organizations, including America First Legal, have filed complaints against companies such as Kellogg, Nordstrom, and Activision Blizzard, alleging racial discrimination in their diversity and inclusion policies.
Apart from the lawsuits against Morrison Foerster and Perkins Coie, AAER has also sued Fearless Fund, a venture capital firm based in Atlanta, over its grant program for early-stage businesses owned by Black women. These cases contend that the firms are violating a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that prohibits racial discrimination in contracts.
The lawsuits seek temporary restraining orders to prevent the selection of fellows, permanent injunctions to end the programs, and declarations that the programs violate the civil rights statute. Edward Blum stated that AAER is awaiting a formal response from Morrison Foerster regarding their motion for a preliminary injunction.