Federal Court Block’s White House DEI Executive Orders: Key Takeaways for Employers

By Philip Giorlando and E. Fredrick Preis, Jr.

On February 21, 2025, a Federal court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of key provisions in two executive orders targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. These executive orders—Executive Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, and Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity—were intended to curtail federal funding and support for DEI initiatives that potentially violated Federal anti-discrimination laws. The court’s ruling provides important implications for federal contractors, grantees, and private sector employers.

Background of the Executive Orders

The Trump administration’s executive orders sought to impose new restrictions on DEI-related programs, particularly for organizations receiving federal funding. They included the following requirements:

Termination of Equity-Related Grants and Contracts – Required agencies to terminate all equity-related grants and contracts within 60 days.
Mandatory Certifications for Federal Contracts and Grants – Obligated recipients to certify that they comply with federal anti-discrimination laws and do not operate DEI programs that violate these laws.
Enforcement Threats Against DEI Initiatives – Directed the Attorney General to develop a strategic plan for deterring DEI programs deemed to constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.

Key Findings of the Court’s Ruling

The court found that these provisions likely violate constitutional protections, specifically the First and Fifth Amendments. The court found that the government cannot selectively restrict speech based on viewpoint, particularly when it pertains to discussions on diversity and equity. Also, it found that the lack of clarity regarding what constitutes an “illegal” DEI program creates uncertainty for employers and potential risks of unfair penalties.

It is important to note that this nationwide injunction does not impact the recent Executive Orders that rescinded Executive Order 11246, the Executive Order that established the Affirmative Action requirements for minorities and women for federal government contractors. At this point, Executive Order 11246 is still rescinded by President Trump.

Implications for Employers

The ruling provides immediate relief from compliance with the enjoined provisions but also presents ongoing challenges:

Temporary Relief from Certification Requirements: Employers are not currently required to certify that their DEI programs comply with undefined anti-discrimination laws.
Uncertainty in DEI Compliance Standards: While the ruling blocks enforcement of specific provisions, federal agencies may still investigate DEI initiatives under existing anti-discrimination laws.
Potential for Further Legal Challenges: The government is expected to appeal the ruling, which could result in additional litigation or a Supreme Court review.
Continued Scrutiny of DEI Programs: Even with the injunction, private litigants and advocacy groups may challenge DEI programs under existing federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Best Practices for Employers Moving Forward

Given the uncertain legal and political landscape surrounding DEI initiatives, employers should take the following steps:

Have DEI Policies Reviewed: Ensure that DEI programs align with existing anti-discrimination laws and focus on fostering an inclusive, legally compliant workplace.
Monitoring Legal Developments: Our Firm is monitoring for future rulings or appeals that may impact employer obligations regarding DEI programs.

Conclusion

The court’s ruling offers temporary relief from restrictive DEI provisions but does not eliminate all risks associated with diversity programs. Employers should remain vigilant, stay informed about ongoing legal developments, and seek guidance to ensure compliance while fostering inclusive workplaces.

Non-Compete Agreements Survive in 2025

By: Jude C. Bursavich

Despite the April 2024 attempt by the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) proposed rule to prohibit most non-compete agreements nationwide, non-compete agreements survive in Louisiana today. The FTC rule was intended to take effect on September 4, 2024. A federal court, however, blocked the rule in August 2024, prohibiting enforcement by the FTC.

What are the rules in Louisiana on non-compete agreements? The validity of non-compete agreements is controlled by a single statute, La. R.S. 23:921. In this question-and-answer approach, common issues and questions that often arise are addressed herein.

Are non-compete agreements enforceable in Louisiana?

Yes, if drafted correctly. The validity and enforceability of non-compete agreements in Louisiana is controlled by a single statute, La. R.S. 23:921. Failure to strictly adhere to its requirements invalidates a Louisiana non-compete agreement.

Does reasonableness play any role in determining the validity of non-compete agreements in Louisiana?

No. Louisiana law differs from most other states on this issue. The statutory requirements of La. R.S. 23:921 include no reasonableness analysis.

What are the requirements of La. R.S. 23:921?

The statute in the first sentence makes clear that non-compete agreements in Louisiana are unenforceable unless the agreement fits into one of the exceptions to the general prohibition listed therein. The opening sentence provides:

“[E]very contract or agreement, or provision thereof, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, except as provided in this section, shall be null and void.” (Emphasis added.)

What are the exceptions to the general prohibition on non-compete agreements in La. R.S. 23:921?

There are eight (8) listed exceptions to the general prohibition. Each is relationship-based. They include the seller/buyer of goodwill of the business relationship; the employer/employee relationship; the partnership/partner relationship involving dissolution; the franchisor/franchisee relationship; the computer employer/employee relationship; the corporation/shareholder relationship; the partnership/partner relationship regardless of dissolution; and the limited liability company/member relationship.

If a non-compete agreement does not fit into one of the eight (8) listed relationships, is it enforceable under Louisiana law?

No.

If an agreement meets one of the eight (8) listed relationship tests, are there other requirements for an enforceable agreement under La. R.S. 23:921?

Yes. Once the relationship requirement is satisfied, an enforceable non-compete agreement can be for no longer than two (2) years from date of termination of the relationship. It can be shorter, but it cannot be any longer than two (2) years. Additionally, the area of prohibition for which someone is prohibited from competing must be listed in the non-compete agreement “by parishes, municipalities, or parts thereof.” Finally, some Louisiana courts require that the business in which a party is prohibited from competing be defined therein. Other Louisiana jurisprudence holds that a definition of the business is no longer required. However, if a definition of the business is included, it cannot be overly broad.[1]

Can a radius be used (50 miles from any office location) to define the area of prohibition?

No. The area of prohibition must be “specified” by “parish, municipality or parts thereof.” Louisiana jurisprudence has specifically held that a radius used to define the area of prohibition fails to meet the requirements of La. R.S. 23:921.[2]

Can an employee be told that if they refuse to sign a non-compete agreement they will be terminated? Is that legal duress?

As long as they are an at-will employee, an employee can be fired for refusing to sign a non-compete agreement according to Louisiana jurisprudence.[3]

Can damages be recovered for violation of a valid non-compete agreement in Louisiana?

Yes. According to La. R.S. 23:921, “damages for the loss sustained and the profit of which” has been deprived is recoverable. Liquidated damages, however, according to Louisiana jurisprudence, are not recoverable for violation of non-compete agreements in Louisiana.[4]

Are there special rules for physician non-compete agreements under La. R.S. 23:921?

Yes. Effective January 1, 2025, La. R.S. 23:921 contains special rules for physician non-compete agreements.

Are there some professions in which they form such a close relationship with their patients/customers that Louisiana law prohibits entirely the use of non-compete agreements in these situations?

Louisiana law does not prohibit the use of non-compete agreements for doctors, hair stylists, or stockbrokers, despite the close relationship formed with their patients/customers. There is one profession in Louisiana, however, in which La. R.S. 23:921 specifically prohibits entirely the use of non-compete agreements. That profession?…Automobile Salesmen.[5]

[1] Baton Rouge Computer Sales, Inc. v. Miller-Conrad, 1999-1200 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/23/00), 767 So. 2d 763, 765; Vartech Sys., Inc. v. Hayden, 2005-2499 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/20/06), 951 So. 2d 247, 260.

[2] Medivision, Inc. v. Germer, 617 So. 2d 69, 72 (La. Ct. App.), writ denied, 619 So. 2d 549 (La. 1993); Team Envtl. Scrvs., Inc. v. Addison, 2 F.3d 124, 126 (5th Cir.1993).

[3] Moores Pump & Supply, Inc. v. Laneaux, 98-1049 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/3/99), 727 So. 2d 695, 698; Litig. Reprographics & Support Servs., Inc. v. Scott, 599 So. 2d 922, 923 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

[4] G.T. Michelli Co. v. McKey, 599 So. 2d 355, 357 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

[5] La. Stat. Ann. § 23:921(I) (2019).