Full article

Four global BigLaw firms under EEOC scrutiny over controversial DEI practices

Can a candidate be discriminated against for being a white man?

What has happened between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), U.S. federal agency responsible for enforcing laws that prohibit workplace discrimination,  and four of the most powerful firms on the planet is not just another technical formality, nor a simple internal HR adjustment. It is an episode that shows how diversity has become a political battleground in the United States, and how, in that clash, major law firms have agreed to roll back programs that were designed to correct historical inequalities. The EEOC, the federal body tasked with monitoring non-discrimination in employment, launched an investigation into how Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher and A&O Shearman were applying their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. The matter was closed through out-of-court agreements: none of the firms was convicted or admitted wrongdoing, but all accepted changes and re-labeling of internal practices to align with an explicit merit-based standard for hiring and promotion, avoiding any program that could be interpreted as a preference based on race or sex.

Up to this point it might sound reasonable: nobody disputes that merit should be central. The problem lies in the subtext and the real-world effect. Because what the EEOC has triggered, in today’s political context, is not a neutral defense of merit but an intimidating warning against any policy that, directly or indirectly, tries to correct structural biases. In practice, the message firms receive is clear: any measure that smells like “preference” can become a regulatory, media and reputational risk. And when a market acts out of fear, it almost always ends up doing the same thing: retreating, even if the original goal was legitimate.

Let’s bring this down to earth with an imaginary example, but one that is perfectly plausible in the BigLaw ecosystem. A 25-year-old New Yorker, with an impeccable résumé, top-of-class honors, brilliant internships and no family financial resources, had managed to study at one of the most prestigious private universities thanks to a scholarship she earned through sheer effort. After years of sacrifice, she applied for a position at one of these four giants. Her interview went perfectly, her references were excellent, the earlier stages of the process left no doubts. She was excited because she knew her merits were exactly what the firm was looking for. So much so that she celebrated with friends that she “had it in the bag.” But a few days later she received a rejection email. The position had been awarded instead to another candidate, an African American applicant. Confused, she spoke with contacts inside the firm, and several hinted that the successful candidate had significantly lower grades and merits. The case doesn’t have to be real to make the point: situations like this could have happened, because when a policy turns into automatic preference, it stops being inclusion and becomes reverse discrimination. And positive discrimination, once it crosses that line, is as harmful as any other form of discrimination: it creates individual injustice, destroys trust in the system and fuels social resentment.

That is why this episode is so serious. Discrimination does not always occur through direct action; many times, it occurs through omission or through badly calibrated institutional engineering. The firms that now feel compelled to “shield themselves” against the EEOC are not only reaffirming meritocracy: they are implicitly acknowledging that some DEI mechanisms may have been operating as de facto quotas. That erodes years of progress and reinforces a dangerous narrative: that diversity and merit exclude one another. That is not true. Well-designed diversity does not replace merit; it corrects unequal access to the conditions needed to demonstrate it. The problem is not DEI, but how it is applied.

Moreover, the impact is global. These four firms set the pace of the world market. When Kirkland, Latham, Simpson Thacher and A&O Shearman change their tone, the rest of Big Law reads it as a survival signal. That shift gets exported to London, Paris, Singapore or Hong Kong, where many international offices are already recalibrating policies to avoid importing an American culture war. The result is a pendulum swinging toward a seemingly neutral model, but one that risks leaving intact or even reinforcing the invisible barriers that DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) was trying to break, replacing bias-correction with fear of investigation.

The final paradox is brutal: the narrative says this is about fighting discrimination, but the practical effect is to deactivate, under political and regulatory pressure, mechanisms that sought to correct prior discrimination without sliding into illegal privilege. The sensible path is neither to destroy DEI nor to turn it into rigid quotas, but to refine it intelligently: open but targeted opportunity programs, real mentoring, transparent criteria, and objective evaluation without shortcuts based on identity. Merit must be the destination, but equality of opportunity must be the road. If you erase that road, merit becomes an alibi. And that, in any serious jurisdiction, is not progress: it is regression dressed in an impeccable contract.