Why Employers Everywhere Should Be Watching DOJ v. Minnesota

What the DOJ’s Lawsuit Against Minnesota Signals for DEI in the Workplace

The U.S. Department of Justice’s January 14, 2026 lawsuit against the State of Minnesota continues the evolving relationship between civil rights law and workplace DEI efforts. Filed under Title VII, the complaint challenges Minnesota’s long‑standing affirmative action framework for state employment—arguing that the state’s use of race‑ and sex‑conscious hiring goals, demographic availability analyses, and pre‑hire justification requirements constitutes a “pattern or practice” of unlawful discrimination.

While the case is directed at a single state, its implications extend far beyond Minnesota. The DOJ’s lawsuit includes a designation by Attorney General Pam Bondi that the case is a matter of “general public importance,” which is designed to secure expedited review by a three-judge panel at the district court level and a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court.  The complaint acknowledges that the DOJ’s claims are contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent, and it is clearly inviting the current justices to overturn that precedent. 

Public agencies, private employers, and DEI leaders across the country should view this lawsuit as a bold statement of the Administration’s assault on identity‑conscious employment practices in the post–Students for Fair Admissions era.  While a Supreme Court reversal of affirmative action precedent is neither certain nor likely to happen imminently, employers need to recognize the ramifications of a potential ruling in the DOJ’s favor and evaluate their DEI efforts and the possibility that the DOJ could target them, too.

What the DOJ Is Challenging

Minnesota’s statutory scheme requires agencies to:

• Track the “underutilization” of a protected group in their workforce
• Compare that data to civilian labor‑market availability
• Identify “underutilization” of protected groups
• Establish numerical goals to address those disparities
• Submit pre‑hire justifications when selecting candidates outside those groups.

The DOJ argues that these requirements necessarily classify applicants by race and sex and impose procedural burdens on some candidates because of those characteristics. Under the complaint’s theory, even well‑intentioned efforts to increase representation can violate Title VII if race or sex plays any role in the employment decision.

This reflects a shift toward a stricter reading of Title VII’s “because of” standard, which leaves little to no space for demographic-based considerations, even when described as remedial.

Why This Matters Now

The lawsuit arrives at a time when employers are already reassessing DEI programs in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. The message from federal courts and the DOJ has become increasingly clear: employment decisions must rely on job‑related criteria and remain race‑neutral, rather than driven by demographic benchmarks.

For DEI leaders, this means the legal risk landscape is changing. Practices that were once considered permissible—such as setting representation goals or requiring diverse interview slates—may now be scrutinized as evidence of intentional discrimination.

The Tension for Employers

Organizations committed to equity face a real challenge. Persistent disparities in hiring and advancement are well‑documented. Clients and communities expect institutions to build workforces that reflect the populations they serve. Yet Title VII prohibits treating individuals differently because of race or sex, even for remedial purposes, unless tied to specific findings of past discrimination.

The Minnesota case underscores this tension. The DOJ does not dispute the value of inclusive workplaces; instead, it argues that demographic disparities alone cannot justify race‑conscious measures. In other words, good intentions do not insulate employers from liability.

A Path Forward

The legal environment does not eliminate DEI—it reshapes it. Employers can continue advancing equity by shifting from outcome‑based strategies to process‑based ones. Effective, legally sound approaches include:

• Broadening outreach and recruitment pipelines
• Using structured interviews and skills‑based assessments
• Reviewing job descriptions for unnecessary barriers
• Training managers on bias‑resistant decision‑making
• Strengthening mentorship, sponsorship, and development pathways
• Focusing on culture, belonging, and retention.

These strategies promote fairness and opportunity without relying on race‑ or sex‑specific preferences.

Conclusion

The DOJ’s lawsuit against Minnesota is a reminder that DEI work must evolve alongside the law. Employers should review existing policies, ensure that demographic data informs—but does not drive—employment decisions, and center their efforts on equitable processes rather than numerical targets.

Equity and compliance are not mutually exclusive. With thoughtful design, organizations can honor both their legal obligations and their commitment to building workplaces where all employees can thrive.

For more information regarding this topic, reach out to Liskow attorneys Cherrell Taplin and Tommy McGoey and visit Liskow's Labor and Employment practice page.