discrimination

California gubernational candidate Betty Yee said that transgender female athletes should be able to compete in women’s sports and that she is open to having athletes of all gender identities compete in the same category in certain events at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

Her comments come as California legislation becomes a central focus in the national debate on the participation of transgender athletes in sports and elucidate her stance on one of the few issues currently dividing the state’s Democrats.

During a recent appearance on “Piers Morgan Uncensored,” Yee said, “I think transgender athletes are women athletes and they should be able to compete.”

Yee, who served as California state controller from 2015 to 2023, told Morgan that transgender female athletes have gone through a physical transition and should be able to participate in women’s sports. However, she added that “there is still some discussion about whether they should compete in the same field” and that more research is needed on the physiology of transgender athletes.

Her view differs from that of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair” and warned that it was hurting Democrats at the polls during a March episode of his podcast featuring conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Newsom’s comments garnered backlash from some party members, who accused the governor of abandoning a vulnerable minority group for political gain.

When Morgan asked Yee if there should be a gender-neutral 2028 L.A. Olympics where everyone competes in the same category, she said, “I think it’s a conversation worth having.”

“If the physicality of the sexes bear true to that [gender neutrality], including with transgender people, yes, it [the Olympics] should be gender neutral,” she said. “I don’t think we know enough.”

Yee suggested that there are some sporting events where all athletes can compete on a level playing field. When asked to name one, she suggested short-distance track and field events such as the 100-meter sprint — a notion Morgan decried as “insane.”

The Olympic record time among male athletes for the 100-meter dash is 9.63 seconds, set by Usain Bolt in 2012, while the women’s Olympic record is 10.61 seconds, set by Elaine Thompson-Herah in 2021.

Yee said she was not a sports expert but emphasized her overall stance that all athletes, including transgender athletes, should have an equal opportunity to participate.

“I think there’s a lot of information we need to learn about what’s really happening with the ability of trans athletes to compete, but my statement is about being able to be sure that they can compete,” she said.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton appeared on Morgan’s show after Yee and called her comments jaw dropping.

“I think we may just have seen another California Democrat candidate torpedo their campaign for governor,” he said, referencing the criticism former Rep. Katie Porter has received over recordings of combative and rude comments to a journalist and a staff member.

Hilton said that as governor he would overturn AB 1266. This law took effect in 2014 and requires that California schools allow students to participate in sporting activities consistent with their gender identities, regardless of the gender listed on their record.

“This is obviously discrimination against girls,” said Hilton. “I’m confident that, as governor, I can actually overturn that law and bring some sanity back to this whole situation.”

In July, the Trump administration sued California for allowing transgender athletes to compete on school sports teams that match their gender identity, alleging that this violates a federal law that prohibits gender-based discrimination in schools by allowing biological males to compete against biological females.

This week, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 749, which creates a commission to examine whether a new state board or department is needed to improve access to youth sports regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, income or geographic location.

The bill was decried by some Republican legislators as an attempt to create a body that will advocate for the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports.

“Days of Our Lives” actor Arianne Zucker has reached a settlement with the producers of the show after her 2024 lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and discrimination on the set of the soap opera.

Notice of the settlement was filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. No further details about the settlement were included. Zucker’s attorney could not be immediately reached for comment.

Zucker had starred on “Days of Our Lives” since 1998, playing the character Nicole Walker. In her February 2024 lawsuit, she alleged that now-former executive producer Albert Alarr subjected her and other employees to “severe and pervasive harassment and discrimination, including sexual harassment, based upon their female gender.”

Zucker claimed that Alarr would grab and hug her, “purposely pushing her breasts onto his chest” while moaning sexually, according to the lawsuit. She also alleged that he would make “sexually charged comments” to her.

“Our client continues to deny the allegations set forth in the complaint,” Alarr’s attorney, Robert Barta, said in a statement. “However, in order to bring the litigation to the end, he has agreed to settle. This decision was made solely to end the dispute and move forward.”

Zucker’s lawsuit also named Corday Productions, which oversees the show, and its owner, Ken Corday, as defendants in the lawsuit, alleging retaliation. Zucker alleged that her pay was decreased and her travel stipend revoked after she voiced concerns. In June 2023, she said her character was written off the show after 20 years.

Several months later, Corday Productions offered to renew Zucker’s contract but allegedly did not negotiate with her representatives for higher pay, the lawsuit said.

Attorneys for Corday and Corday Productions did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Corday Productions previously told The Times in a statement that Zucker’s claims “are without merit” and that she was offered a pay increase upon an offer to renew her contract. The company said at the time that complaints about Alarr’s on-set behavior were “promptly investigated” and the company “fully cooperated with the impartial investigation and subsequently terminated Mr. Alarr.”

“Days of Our Lives” aired on Comcast-owned NBC from Nov. 8, 1965, to Sept. 9, 2022, before moving to the Comcast streaming platform Peacock in 2022.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill that sets up a state Office for Civil Rights to combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination in California schools.

Assembly Bill 715 was among the most hotly contested education-related measures, spawning from dissatisfaction, largely among a coalition of Jewish groups, to the way ethnic studies has been taught in some California classrooms.

The critics said in some schools, ethnic studies classes have improperly focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that lessons reflected bias against Jews. The allegations of bias are denied by those instructors who include lessons about the conflict in their syllabus.

The law creates a state Office for Civil Rights that reports to the governor’s cabinet. It would take on a monitoring and assistance mission — fielding complaints and questions; preparing learning materials and reports on identifying and combating discrimination; and helping teachers, schools and school districts comply with state antidiscrimination laws.

Different forms of discrimination would be addressed by a specialized coordinator — one each for antisemitism, religious discrimination, race and ethnicity discrimination, gender discrimination and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

The final version of the bill — paired with companion Senate Bill 48 — expanded beyond an initial focus on antisemitism. This revision was a response to those who questioned why the original bill language addressed only discrimination against Jews.

“California is taking action to confront hate in all its forms,” Newsom said in a statement. “At a time when antisemitism and bigotry are rising nationwide and globally, these laws make clear: Our schools must be places of learning, not hate.”

Bill co-author and state Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) called the legislation “a historic first … that centers on the well-being of children across our state, many of whom bravely shared horrific stories about their experiences in our schools.”

The bill drew strong opposition from teacher unions, faculty groups, Muslim organizations and liberal groups who worried about the suppression of discussion about current events in the Middle East.

A surge of antisemitism

Antisemitic incidents increased in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war that began with a Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, that killed about 1,200. The war continues with Israel’s campaign to eradicate Hamas, leading to a Palestinian death toll estimated at more than 67,000, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

At a recent news conference in support of the bill, a Jewish student told of her experience at a public middle school in the Bay Area.

“After Oct. 7, everything changed,” said Ella, who was identified only by her first name. “People who I thought were my friends turned on me. They called me the Jew. They told me that my family is living on stolen land, and yelled at me that I was a murderer and a terrorist. They even started to chase me, and I had to run away for my own safety just because I’m Jewish and I speak Hebrew. I didn’t deserve any of this.”

Ella said some staff members, instead of providing support, expressed biased views.

No matter what a student believes or who they are, “every student deserves to be safe, valued and respected,” said bill co-author and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles).

The final — and much amended — version of the bill received overwhelming support in the Legislature. The vote in the state Assembly was 71 yes, 0 no with 9 abstentions; the vote in the state Senate was 35 yes, 0 no, 5 abstentions.

But this outcome belied an extended, hard-fought debate.

The original legislation targeted ethnic studies — or certain versions of how it was being taught. AB 715 evolved, however, to take on antisemitism more broadly.

A contentious debate

The legislation drew resistance from organizations including ACLU California Action and the California Teachers Assn. Leading voices among the critics also included pro-Palestinian and Muslim groups, a large faction of ethnic studies teachers and some Jewish groups that are strongly critical of the Israeli government.

ACLU California Action warned of a “chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech by educators and students.”

“We abhor and condemn antisemitism in any form,” the California Teachers Assn., wrote in a July letter to the state Senate Education Committee. But “at a time when there are those that seek to weaponize public education, AB 715 would unfortunately arm some ill-intentioned people with the ability to do so.”

The bill coincided with Trump administration actions to combat antisemitism — and to suppress pro-Palestinian activism — as part of his wide-ranging ideological push. Those actions and AB 715 became inevitably associated in the public discourse.

Leading bill supporters, including state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), strongly objected to any linkage with the Trump administration.

“There’s a false and extremely dangerous narrative being peddled,” Wiener said in an August news conference. “It is an effort to basically say that if you are claiming antisemitism by anyone other than right-wing extremists, you’re somehow aligning yourself with Donald Trump. That is deeply, deeply offensive, and it is a lie.”

The ethnic studies connection

Although the bill evolved, it retained a mechanism to raise issues related to how ethnic studies is taught.

The bill speaks of ensuring antidiscriminatory course and teacher-training materials. To investigate formal complaints, the state would rely on an existing complaint procedure, which examines alleged violations involving discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying.

Some critics of AB 715 acknowledged that the bill was revised to address their concerns but they still opposed it. They continue to worry that the new law will chill discussion of controversial issues in ethnic studies and elsewhere — and also falsely equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

There also was criticism on the right from Will Swaim of the California Policy Center — which said the bill that emerged was too watered down. It had become a “do-nothing law that promises to do everything,” Swaim wrote, while creating a new state bureaucracy in the process.

One bill aims to raise lagging reading skills among California children by mandating how schools teach this critical subject. Another seeks to overhaul cafeteria meals by eliminating highly processed foods. A third aims to protect students from being derailed by discrimination.

These bills and others passed by the Legislature in the session’s final busy days will directly affect the classroom experience of some 5.8 million California public schools students. Broadly speaking, these bills target students’ minds, health and emotional well-being — and the results were not without controversy.

The measures now land on the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until Oct. 12 to approve or reject them.

Assembly Bill 715: Anti-discrimination

Among the most hotly contested education-related measures, Assembly Bill 715 was spawned from dissatisfaction — largely among a coalition of Jewish groups — to the way ethnic studies is being taught in some California classrooms. Critics say that in some schools, ethnic studies classes have improperly focused on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and that they reflect bias against Jews. The allegations of bias are denied by those instructors who include the conflict in their syllabus.

The final version of the bill — paired with companion Senate Bill 48 — would expand the focus beyond antisemitism, a revision that responds to those who questioned why the original bill language addressed only discrimination against Jews.

“California has taken a historic stand against antisemitism in our schools,” said David Bocarsly, executive director of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California. “For far too long, Jewish students have endured slurs, bullying, and open hostility in their classrooms with nowhere to turn. AB 715 is a promise to those students — and to all children in California — that they are not invisible, that their safety and dignity matter.”

The legislation that finally emerged would create a state Office for Civil Rights that reports to the governor’s cabinet. It would take on a monitoring and assistance mission — fielding complaints and questions; preparing learning materials and reports on identifying and combating discrimination; and helping teachers, schools and school districts comply with state anti-discrimination laws.

Different forms of discrimination would be addressed by a specialized coordinator — one each for antisemitism, religious discrimination, race and ethnicity discrimination, gender discrimination and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

Issues related to ethnic studies would include ensuring anti-discriminatory course and teacher training materials. To investigate formal complaints, the state would rely on an existing complaint procedure, which examines alleged violations involving discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying.

Critics of AB 715 — which include the California Teachers Assn. — acknowledge that bill was revised to address their concerns but still oppose it. They say it could chill discussion of controversial issues in ethnic students and elsewhere and also falsely equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

AB 1454: Science of Reading

A sweeping bill would overhaul how reading is taught in California classrooms — mandating phonics-based lessons and culminating decades of debate on how best to teach children this foundational skill. The bill is unusual in a state that generally emphasizes local control over instruction.

AB 1454 would require school districts to adopt instructional materials grounded in what supporters call the “science of reading,” which is based on research about how young children learn to read.

The now-favored approach leans heavily on decoding and sounding out words based on the letter sounds, while laying out five pillars for more effective instruction: phonemic awareness (the sounds that letters make), phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

The hope is that this teaching style will boost persistently disappointing test scores.

A 2022 study of 300 school districts in California found that fewer than 2% of districts were using curricula that proponents viewed as sufficiently strong in science-of-reading practices.

These advocates have long been critical of alternative “whole language” approaches that rely heavily on the concept that children are more engaged when they learn to read with less emphasis on decoding words. Teachers focus instead on surrounding children with books to foster a love of reading, directing children to figure out unknown words based on context, pictures and other clues.

“Transforming California’s education system requires a coordinated approach rooted in proven solutions,” said Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, an education advocacy nonprofit that has championed the change.

Many California teachers, however, remain committed to different methods and chafe at a state-mandated approach, especially one that runs counter to their classroom experience and previous training. Advocates for students learning English have voiced especially strong opposition to the science-of-reading philosophy.

AB 1264: Ultra-processed foods

Chicken nuggets, corn dogs, packaged frozen pizza, chips, canned fruits and sugary cereals are the types of ultra-processed foods in school meals targeted in Assembly Bill 1264, which would require healthier cafeteria options in the years ahead.

Heavily processed foods often include reconstituted meat along with chemical additives such as preservatives, emulsifiers, coloring and other ingredients absent from scratch cooking — not to mention added sugars, fats and salt — that together can harm students “physical and mental health and interfere with their ability to learn,” according to bill author Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino).

The bill was opposed by manufacturers who considered it too constraining and too subject to non-scientific whims.

The final version eased some concerns by setting up a review process rather than simply listing foods and chemicals to ban. There also is a gradual phase-in over several years.

The expectation is that processed foods that remain on the menu will be healthier and also that there will be an acceleration of efforts to prepare foods within school kitchens, relying as much as possible on local and fresh ingredients.

AB 564: Cannabis tax and child care

The Legislature also voted to claw back an increase to the cannabis excise tax, which took effect in July and raised the state tax rate paid by consumers to 19%. The goal is to bolster the struggling legal-cannabis industry. A chunk of child-care funding is among the casualties of the lower tax revenue.

Assembly Bill 564 would mean an estimated $180-million annual reduction for law enforcement, child care, services for at-risk youth and environmental cleanup. Of the total, about $81 million would have funded subsidized child-care slots for about 8,000 children from low-income families. Overall, the state budget to assist with child care is $7 billion, a figure that advocates view as short of what’s needed, especially with further potential cuts looming.

Other notable measures

Assembly Bill 461 would end the treatment of truancy as a crime under state law. Existing law can subject the parent or guardian of a student who is chronically absent or late to school with a fine of up to $2,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.

Prosecutions are rare and the potential penalties are typically viewed as deterrents. But the pendulum in California has shifted away from tough-on-truancy measures to alternatives such as counseling and family assistance.

The Legislature also has passed bills in support of immigrant families, that will frequently have a carryover effect on how schools operate, such as a bill that bars immigration officers from campus unless they have a valid judicial warrant.

Times staff writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Marc Seawright took pride in his job at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he worked for more than eight years and most recently oversaw technology policy to support the agency’s mission of combating workplace harassment and discrimination.

But then President Trump began targeting transgender and nonbinary people within hours of returning to the White House by issuing a series of executive orders — including one declaring the existence of two unchangeable sexes. Seawright was ordered to develop technology to scrub any mention of LGBTQ+ identities from all EEOC outreach materials, which had been created to help employers understand their obligations under civil rights law.

Suddenly, his tech expertise “was being leveraged to perpetuate discrimination against people like me,” said Seawright, 41, who served as the EEOC’s director of information governance and strategy before he quit in June, citing a hostile work environment. “It became overwhelming. It felt insurmountable.”

A San Francisco-based Army veteran, Seawright is one of 10 transgender and gender nonconforming government employees across federal agencies who spoke with the Associated Press about their workplace experiences since Trump regained office, describing their fear, grief, frustration and distress working for an employer that rejects their identity — often with no clear path for recourse or support. Several requested anonymity for fear of retaliation; some, including Seawright, have filed formal discrimination complaints.

Since January, the Trump administration has reversed years of legal and policy gains for transgender Americans, including stripping government websites of “gender ideology” and reinstituting a ban on transgender service members in the military.

The White House and the EEOC declined to respond to allegations that the president’s policies created a hostile workplace for transgender federal employees. But his executive order, which defines sex as strictly male or female, states that its goal is to protect spaces designated for women and girls.

“Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being,” the order says.

Independent Women, a nonprofit that advocates for legislation defining sex as male and female, supports Trump’s executive order.

“Women’s rights can get erased if men can just self-identify to women’s spaces,” said the organization’s senior legal advisor Beth Parlato.

Brad Sears, senior scholar at UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, which researches policy impacting LGBTQ+ people, points to “a sweeping, government-wide initiative to really erase transgender people from public life,” including adults in the workplace.

“The federal workplace is increasingly an inhospitable place for the transgender employees who remain,” Sears said.

Compared with private sector workers, transgender federal employees are especially vulnerable because many ultimately answer to the president, said Olivia Hunt, director of federal policy at Advocates for Trans Equality, which seeks legal and political rights for transgender people in the United States.

“In the absence of an ability to impose their will directly on employers throughout the country, this administration is going to use the tools that they have to attack the trans people who are in close proximity to them, and that includes federal workers,” Hunt said.

After serving as the first openly transgender soldier in the Illinois National Guard, LeAnne Withrow retired from the military due to injury, and now works in a federal civilian role helping military families access resources.

Withrow visits armories across Illinois for her job, sometimes in remote areas. But Trump’s executive order directing agencies to take “appropriate action” to ensure that intimate spaces “are designated by sex and not identity” created a major hurdle for Withrow when her supervisors informed her that she was no longer allowed to use the women’s restroom at work.

“I don’t use men’s spaces because I don’t feel comfortable doing that,” the 34-year-old said.

At locations without single-occupancy options, a simple bathroom break can mean a 45-minute round trip to a nearby gas station or McDonald’s.

Represented by the ACLU, Withrow filed a class action complaint in May challenging the Trump administration’s policy on the basis of sex discrimination.

A spokesperson for the Illinois National Guard declined to comment on the pending lawsuit but said the agency is “committed to treating all of our employees with dignity and respect.” The Department of Defense also declined to comment, citing policy, but affirmed its commitment to enforcing relevant laws and implementing the gender executive order.

For Seawright at the EEOC, he feels like his skill set was being wielded against the agency’s mission, not to support it. Following Trump’s signing of his executive order, Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, quickly began reshaping policy and, among other things, removed the agency’s “pronoun app,” which allowed employees to display their pronouns in their profiles. It was a tool that was created — then dismantled — by Seawright.

He had spent two years developing the app to support a nonbinary employee at the agency.

“For it to be just kind of yanked away summarily with none of the thoughtfulness and planning that went into implementing the tool … that became really frustrating,” Seawright said.

His mental health suffered, and he requested extended personal leave shortly after he completed the project scrubbing references to gender identity. When he returned in late February, the situation continued to deteriorate.

He hired lawyers at Katz Banks Kumin and filed a formal discrimination complaint. In June, Seawright resigned, citing “significant distress, anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, anger, and sadness” caused daily by Lucas’ “anti-transgender actions.”

Withrow, meanwhile, still works in her role while navigating similar challenges.

“I do feel as though there is at least an implied threat for trans folks in federal service,” she said. “We’ll just continue to meet the objectives and focus on the mission, and hope that that is enough proof that we belong.”

Savage writes for the Associated Press.

Anti-discrimination charity Kick It Out says it received record-high reports of discrimination during the 2024-25 season with a rise in sexism, transphobia and faith-based abuse.

Across all levels of English football last season, there were 1,398 incidents reported – up from the 1,332 published in last season’s figures – and the most ever received by the organisation.

Reports of sexism and misogyny rose by 67%, with reports increasing from 115 in the 2023-24 season to 192.

Faith-based abuse climbed from 117 to 132, while reports of transphobia doubled from 22 to 44.

Reports involving girls’ football doubled to 31, including two at under-9s level, while overall youth reports rose from 144 to a record high of 186.

Overall reports of racism fell across all levels of football, but the number of racist incidents in the professional game increased from 223 to 245.

Kick It Out also noted in its end-of-season reporting statistics for last season:

Kick It Out chief executive Samuel Okafor said “discrimination remains deeply embedded across the game”, and the rise in abuse in youth football “should be a wake-up call”.

Okafor acknowledged there had been a “clear shift” in people “calling out sexist behaviour”, but he wants to see greater action to tackle online abuse.

“It’s clear that online platforms are still falling short. The volume of abuse remains high, and too often those responsible face no consequences,” said Okafor.

“Fans are doing their part by speaking up. It’s now up to football authorities, tech companies and government to show they’re listening, and to act.”

Less than half of Americans believe racial minorities face substantial discrimination, in a reversal of the previous trend.

Only 40 percent of people in the United States believe that Black and Hispanic people face “quite a bit” or “a great deal” of discrimination, according to a new poll highlighting a reversal in previously held perceptions.

An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released on Thursday also found that 30 percent of those surveyed felt the same way about Asian people, and only 10 percent believed that white people were discriminated against.

“The number of people saying Asian people and Black people are experiencing a substantial amount of discrimination has dropped since an AP-NORC poll conducted in April 2021,” according to a statement on the NORC website.

The poll comes as US President Donald Trump continues to attack initiatives that promote diversity at universities and the workplace, and to pressure institutions not aligned with his political agenda in the name of combatting left-wing ideas.

In the spring of 2021, amid massive protests against racial injustice following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 60 percent of people polled believed that Black people face “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of discrimination in the US. That figure has now dropped to less than 50 percent.

About 74 percent of Black people say their communities continue to face substantial discrimination, while just 39 percent of white respondents said that Black people face serious discrimination.

People in the US have also become more sceptical about corporate efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, often referred to as DEI. Many large companies have started to roll back such efforts.

Between 33 percent and 41 percent said that DEI made no difference at all, and a quarter said it was likely to increase discrimination against minorities.

“Anytime they’re in a space that they’re not expected to be, like seeing a Black girl in an engineering course … they are seen as only getting there because of those factors,” Claudine Brider, a 48-year-old Black Democrat in Compton, California, told the Associated Press. “It’s all negated by someone saying, ‘You’re only here to meet a quota.’”

But the Trump administration has gone far beyond criticisms of DEI efforts, wielding a wide definition of the term to exert pressure on institutions and organisations that he sees as hostile to his political agenda. The president has threatened, for example, to withhold federal disaster aid from states that do not align with his efforts to roll back anti-discrimination measures and open probes into companies with DEI policies, which he has framed as racist against white people.

A majority of those polled also believe that undocumented immigrants face discrimination, as the Trump administration pursues a programme of mass deportations that have caused fear in immigrant communities across the country.

“Most people, 58 percent, think immigrants without legal status also face discrimination — the highest amount of any identity group,” AP-NORC states. “Four in 10 say immigrants living legally in the United States also face this level of discrimination.”

The poll also found that more than half of the public believes Muslims face substantial discrimination, and about one-third said the same for Jewish people.

WASHINGTON — Slightly less than half of U.S. adults believe that Black people face “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of discrimination in the United States, according to a poll. That’s a decline from the solid majority, 60%, who thought Black Americans faced high levels of discrimination in the spring of 2021, months after racial reckoning protests in response to the police killing of George Floyd.

Significant numbers of Americans also think diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, also known as DEI, are backfiring against the groups they’re intended to help, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, including many people who belong to those groups.

The findings suggest Americans’ views on racial discrimination have shifted substantially since four years ago, when many companies launched efforts to promote diversity within their workforces and the products they sold.

Since then, many of those companies have reversed themselves and retreated from their diversity practices, a trend that’s accelerated this year under pressure from President Trump, a Republican who has sought to withhold federal money from schools and companies that promote DEI.

Now, it’s clear that views are changing as well as company policies.

Claudine Brider, a 48-year-old Black Democrat in Compton, California, says the concept of DEI has made the workplace difficult for Black people and women in new ways.

“Anytime they’re in a space that they’re not expected to be, like seeing a Black girl in an engineering course … they are seen as only getting there because of those factors,” Brider said. “It’s all negated by someone saying, ‘You’re only here to meet a quota.’”

Reversal in views of racial discrimination

The poll finds 45% of U.S. adults think Black people face high levels of discrimination, down from 60% in the spring of 2021. There was a similar drop in views about the prevalence of serious discrimination against Asian people, which fell from 45% in the 2021 poll — conducted a month after the Atlanta spa shootings, which killed eight people, including six women of Asian descent — to 32% in the current survey.

There’s no question the country has backtracked from its “so-called racial reckoning” and the experiences of particular groups such as Black people are being downplayed, said Phillipe Copeland, a professor at Boston University School of Social Work.

Americans’ views about discrimination haven’t shifted when it comes to all groups, though. Just under half of U.S. adults, 44%, now say Hispanic people face at least “quite a bit of discrimination,” and only 15% say this about white people. Both numbers are similar to when the question was last asked in April 2021.

Divisions on the impact of DEI on Black and Hispanic people

The poll indicates that less than half of Americans think DEI has a benefit for the people it’s intended to help.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults say DEI reduces discrimination against Black people, while about one-third say this about Hispanic people, women and Asian people. Many — between 33% and 41% — don’t think DEI makes a difference either way. About one-quarter of U.S. adults believe that DEI actually increases discrimination against these groups.

Black and Hispanic people are more likely than white people to think DEI efforts end up increasing discrimination against people like them.

About 4 in 10 Black adults and about one-third of Hispanic adults say DEI increases discrimination against Black people, compared with about one-quarter of white adults. There is a similar split between white adults and Black and Hispanic adults on assessments of discrimination against Hispanic people.

Among white people, it’s mostly Democrats who think DEI efforts reduce discrimination against Black and Hispanic people. Only about one-quarter of white independents and Republicans say the same.

Pete Parra, a 59-year-old resident of Gilbert, Ariz., thinks that DEI is making things harder for racial minorities now. He worries about how his two adult Hispanic sons will be treated when they apply for work.

“I’m not saying automatically just give it to my sons,” said Parra, who leans toward the Democratic Party. But he’s concerned that now factors other than merit may take priority.

“If they get passed over for something,” he said, “they’re not going to know (why).”

About 3 in 10 say DEI increases discrimination against white people

The poll shows that Americans aren’t any more likely to think white people face discrimination than they were in 2021. And more than half think DEI doesn’t make a difference when it comes to white people or men.

But a substantial minority — about 3 in 10 U.S. adults — think DEI increases discrimination against white people. Even more white adults, 39%, hold that view, compared with 21% of Hispanic adults and 13% of Black adults.

The recent political focus on DEI has included the idea that white people are more often overlooked for career and educational opportunities because of their race.

John Bartus, a 66-year-old registered Republican in Twin Falls, Idaho, says that DEI might have been “a good thing for all races of people, but it seems like it’s gone far left.” It’s his impression that DEI compels companies to hire people based on their race or if they identify as LGBTQ+.

“The most qualified person ought to get a job based on their merit or based on their educational status,” Bartus said.

Brider, the Black California resident, objects to the notion that white people face the same level of discrimination as Black people. But while she thinks the aims of DEI are admirable, she also sees the reality as flawed.

“I do think there needs to be something that ensures that there is a good cross-section of people in the workplace,” Brider said. “I just don’t know what that would look like, to be honest.”

Tang and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press. The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

A former labor relations employee at Netflix is suing the company, claiming she was wrongfully terminated after raising concerns over her superiors’ discrimination against women of color and allegations of sexual harassment.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges that the employee’s managers broke laws and policies that protect employees from race- and gender-based discrimination, and from retaliation for reporting alleged discrimination or harassment.

Nhu-Y Phan was hired at Netflix as legal counsel in labor relations in May 2021. She was fired due to “unspecified performance issues” in September 2024, her lawsuit said. According to the complaint, Phan had never been subject to any discipline and had received overwhelmingly positive performance reviews and feedback throughout her time at the company.

She is seeking punitive damages, emotional distress damages, past and future lost income and other forms of relief, as well as a jury trial.

A Netflix spokesperson said in a brief statement the claims outlined in the suit “lack merit and we intend to defend this matter vigorously.”

For the first year of her Netflix career, Phan was supervised by Ted Sinclair, who is named as a defendant in the suit. Phan alleges that Sinclair repeatedly excluded her and other women of color on her team from professional opportunities that he offered to white colleagues, and that he “encouraged a white employee” to take credit for her work.

Phan made multiple verbal and written complaints about this unequal treatment, including through meetings with both the human resources department and with Sinclair directly, but was still denied opportunities, the lawsuit said. She asked to be removed from Sinclair’s direct supervision in the summer of 2022.

Later, a female colleague confided in Phan, alleging that her new supervior, Jonah Cozien, was sexually harassing her, the complaint said. Cozien is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Phan reported the behavior to human resources, and after doing so, Cozien became “frequently hostile” toward her, limiting her professional opportunities and giving her critical feedback despite never having provided feedback before she made the report, according to the suit.

Sinclair and Cozien did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and their lawyers could not be identified.

After Phan was fired, her lawyers say Netflix filed a lawsuit against her to compel arbitration. Brian Olney, one of the attorneys from Pasadena-based Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai who is representing Phan, said forcing her into arbitration proceedings is a violation of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which became law in 2022.

Because records in arbitration are protected, employers that have arbitration clauses in their employment contracts can avoid public attention on cases involving sexual harassment and assault. The House Judiciary Committee said passing the law would bring justice to victims who were “locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration that often favors the company over the individual.”

“Netflix fired Nhu Phan and tried to force her into secretive arbitration proceedings to silence her voice,” Olney said in a statement. “With her lawsuit, she is standing up to this corporate bully and their outrageous and despicable conduct.”

DES MOINES — Iowa became the first state to remove gender identity from its civil rights code under a law that took effect Tuesday, meaning transgender and nonbinary residents are no longer protected from discrimination in their job, housing and other aspects of life.

The law also explicitly defines female and male based on reproductive organs at birth and removes the ability for people to change the sex designation on their birth certificate.

An unprecedented take-back of legal rights after nearly two decades in Iowa code leaves transgender, nonbinary and potentially even intersex Iowans more vulnerable now than they were before. It’s a governing doctrine now widely adopted by President Trump and Republican-led states despite the mainstream medical view that sex and gender are better understood as a spectrum than as an either-or definition.

When Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed Iowa’s new law, she said the state’s previous civil rights code “blurred the biological line between the sexes.”

“It’s common sense to acknowledge the obvious biological differences between men and women. In fact, it’s necessary to secure genuine equal protection for women and girls,” she said in a video statement.

Also taking effect Tuesday are provisions in the state’s health and human services budget that say Medicaid recipients are no longer covered for gender-affirming surgery or hormone therapy.

A national movement

Iowa’s state Capitol filled with protesters as the law went through the Republican-controlled Legislature and to Reynolds’ desk in just one week in February. Iowa Republicans said laws passed in recent years to restrict transgender students’ use of bathrooms and locker rooms, and their participation on sports teams, could not coexist with a civil rights code that includes gender identity protections.

About two dozen other states and the Trump administration have advanced restrictions on transgender people. Republicans say such laws and executive actions protect spaces for women, rejecting the idea that people can transition to another gender. Many face court challenges.

About two-thirds of U.S. adults believe that whether a person is a man or woman is determined by biological characteristics at birth, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May found. But there’s less consensus on policies that target transgender and nonbinary people.

Transgender people say those kinds of policies deny their existence and capitalize on prejudice for political gain.

In a major setback for transgender rights nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court last month upheld Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors. The court’s conservative majority said it doesn’t violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.

Not every state includes gender identity in their civil rights code, but Iowa was the first to remove nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights think tank.

Incidents of discrimination in Iowa, before and after July 1

Iowans will still have time to file a complaint with the state Office of Civil Rights about discrimination based on gender identity that occurred before the law took effect.

State law requires a complaint to be submitted within 300 days after the most recent incident of alleged discrimination. That means people have until April 27 to file a complaint about discrimination based on gender identity, according to Kristen Stiffler, the office’s executive director.

Sixty-five such complaints were filed and accepted for investigation from July 2023 through the end of June 2024, according to Stiffler. Forty-three were filed and accepted from July 1, 2024, through June 19 of this year.

Iowa state Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, a Democrat and the state’s first openly transgender lawmaker, fears the law will lead to an increase in discrimination for transgender Iowans.

“Anytime someone has to check your ID and they see that the gender marker doesn’t match the appearance, then that opens up hostility, discrimination as possibilities,” Wichtendahl said, naming examples such as applying for a job, going through the airport, buying beer or getting pulled over in a traffic stop. “That instantly outs you. That instantly puts you on the spot.”

About half of U.S. states include gender identity in their civil rights code to protect against discrimination in housing and public places, such as stores or restaurants, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Some additional states do not explicitly protect against such discrimination, but it is included in legal interpretations of statutes.

Five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled LGBTQ+ people are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. But Iowa’s Supreme Court has expressly rejected the argument that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity.

Changing Iowa birth certificates before the law took effect

The months between when the bill was signed into law and when it took effect gave transgender Iowans time to pursue amended birth certificates before that option was eliminated.

Keenan Crow, with LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Iowa, said the group has long co-sponsored legal clinics to assist with that process.

“The last one that we had was by far the biggest,” Crow said.

Iowa’s Department of Transportation still has a process by which people can change the gender designation on their license or identification card, but has proposed administrative rules to eliminate that option.

Wichtendahl also said she has talked to some families who are looking to move out of state as a result of the new law.

“It’s heartbreaking because this is people’s lives we’re talking about,” Wichtendahl added. “These are families that have trans loved ones and it’s keeping their loved ones away, it’s putting their loved ones into uncertain future, putting their health and safety at risk.”

Fingerhut writes for the Associated Press.

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin dairy farmer alleged in a federal lawsuit filed Monday that the Trump administration is illegally denying financial assistance to white farmers by continuing programs that favor minorities.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture in federal court in Wisconsin on behalf of a white dairy farmer, Adam Faust.

Faust was among several farmers who successfully sued the Biden administration in 2021 for race discrimination in the USDA’s Farmer Loan Forgiveness Plan.

The new lawsuit alleges the government has continued to implement diversity, equity and inclusion programs that were instituted under former President Biden. The Wisconsin Institute wrote to the USDA in April warning of legal action, and six Republican Wisconsin congressmen called on the USDA to investigate and end the programs.

“The USDA should honor the President’s promise to the American people to end racial discrimination in the federal government,” Faust said in a written statement. “After being ignored by a federal agency that’s meant to support agriculture, I hope my lawsuit brings answers, accountability, and results from USDA.”

Trump administration spokesperson Anna Kelly did not immediately respond to an email Monday seeking comment.

The lawsuit contends that Faust is one of 2 million white male American farmers who are subject to discriminatory race-based policies at the USDA.

The lawsuit names three USDA programs and policies it says put white men at a disadvantage and violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment by discriminating based on race and sex.

Faust participates in one program designed to offset the gap between milk prices and the cost of feed, but the lawsuit alleges he is charged a $100 administrative fee that minority and female farmers do not have to pay.

Faust also participates in a USDA program that guarantees 90% of the value of loans to white farmers, but 95% to women and racial minorities. That puts Faust at a disadvantage, the lawsuit alleges.

Faust has also begun work on a new manure storage system that could qualify for reimbursement under a USDA environmental conservation program, but 75% of his costs are eligible while 90% of the costs of minority farmers qualify, the lawsuit contends.

A federal court judge ruled in a similar 2021 case that granting loan forgiveness only to “socially disadvantaged farmers” amounts to unconstitutional race discrimination. The Biden administration suspended the program and Congress repealed it in 2022.

The Wisconsin Institute has filed dozens of such lawsuits in 25 states attacking DEI programs in government. In its April letter to the USDA, the law firm that has a long history of representing Republicans said it didn’t want to sue “but there is no excuse for this continued discrimination.”

Trump has been aggressive in trying to end the government’s DEI efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and bring about a profound cultural shift across the U.S. from promoting diversity to an exclusive focus on merit.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

California sued the U.S. Justice Department on Monday over its demand last week that local school districts ban transgender youth from competing in sports, arguing the federal agency had overstepped its authority in violation of both state and federal law.

The “pre-enforcement” lawsuit was filed “in anticipation of imminent legal retaliation against California’s school systems” for not complying with the agency’s directive by its Monday deadline, said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which is handling the litigation.

“The President and his Administration are demanding that California school districts break the law and violate the Constitution — or face legal retaliation. They’re demanding that our schools discriminate against the students in their care and deny their constitutionally protected rights,” Bonta said in a statement. “As we’ve proven time and again in court, just because the President disagrees with a law, that doesn’t make it any less of one.”

The lawsuit comes a week after Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee and head of the federal Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to school districts across California warning them that they faced potential “legal liability” if they did not “certify in writing” by Monday that they will break with California Interscholastic Federation rules and state law to ban transgender athletes from competition in their districts.

Dhillon argued that allowing transgender athletes to compete “would deprive girls of athletic opportunities and benefits based solely on their biological sex,” in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond responded last week by saying in his own letter to schools that Dhillon’s warning carried no legal weight and that school districts were still obligated to follow state law, which requires transgender athletes be allowed to compete on teams based on their gender identity.

The California Department of Education sent a letter to federal authorities Monday, informing them that California’s school districts are under no obligation to provide certifications to the Justice Department.

“There are no changes in law or circumstances that necessitate a new certification,” wrote General Counsel Len Garfinkel. “Moreover, the DOJ letter references no law that would authorize the DOJ to require another ‘certification.’”

“All students — not just transgender students — benefit from inclusive school environments that are free from discrimination and harassment,” Garfinkel added. “When transgender students are treated equally, their mental health outcomes mirror those of their cisgender peers.”

Bonta’s lawsuit asks a federal court in Northern California to uphold the constitutionality of California’s antidiscrimination laws protecting transgender athletes, and to bar the Trump administration from withholding funds or taking other retaliatory actions against school districts that refuse to abide by the Trump directive.

The lawsuit falls along one of the fastest growing legal and political fault lines in America: Does the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment — the Constitution’s oft-cited guarantee against discrimination — protect transgender rights or undermine them?

Dhillon, other members of the Trump administration and anti-transgender activists nationwide have argued that the inclusion of transgender girls in youth sports amounts to illegal discrimination against cisgender girls.

Bonta’s office and other LGBTQ+ advocates argue that the exclusion of transgender girls is what constitutes illegal discrimination — and that courts, including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs California and much of the American West, have agreed.

While Dhillon “purports that compliance with the Equal Protection Clause requires the categorical exclusion of transgender girls from girls’ sports, as courts have previously upheld, just the opposite is true: the Equal Protection Clause forbids such policies of total exclusion, as does California law,” Bonta’s office said.

State law that allows transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their identity “is squarely within the State’s authority to ensure all students are afforded the benefits of an inclusive school environment, including participation in school sports, and to prevent the serious harms that transgender students would suffer from a discriminatory, exclusionary policy.”

An attorney who supports keeping transgender athletes out of girls sports said the rights of female athletes are paramount in this situation.

Both the U.S. Constitution and federal statute provide protections for female athletes that California is violating by “allowing males into ‘girls only’ categories,” said Julie A. Hamill, principal attorney with California Justice Center, a law firm that has complaints pending with the federal Office for Civil Rights on behalf of young female athletes.

“By continuing to fan flames of division and play politics, leftist politicians and media outlets are causing further harm to American girls,” Hamill said.

Polls have shown that Americans generally support transgender rights, but also that a majority oppose transgender girls competing in youth sports. Many prominent advocates for excluding transgender girls from sports praised Dhillon’s actions last week as a bold move to protect cisgender girls from unfair competition.

Sonja Shaw, a Trump supporter who is president of the Chino Valley Unified Board of Education, has called on California school systems to adopt resolutions in support of the Trump administration order.

“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” Shaw said last week. “Our daughters deserve safe, fair competition … But radical policies are undermining that right, pushing boys into girls’ sports and threatening their opportunities. We’re not backing down.”

Shaw, a candidate for state superintendent of public instruction, said other school systems could model these resolutions on one passed by her school district.

A handful of the state’s 1,000 school districts have passed such resolutions.

The lawsuit’s claim that retaliation from the Trump administration could be imminent for schools that do not comply with the administration’s demands is not entirely speculative. It is based at least in part on repeated threats and actions the administration has already taken against states over its trans-inclusive sports policies.

President Trump has said outright that he wants to cut federal funding to California over its laws allowing transgender athletes to compete in youth sports. The federal Justice Department has announced investigations into the state and the California Interscholastic Federation over its inclusive policies for transgender athletes.

U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli in Los Angeles, a longtime ally of Dhillon and whose appointment has yet to be confirmed, recently threw his office’s support behind a private lawsuit challenging the inclusion of a transgender athlete on the track and field team at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside.

Dhillon issued her letter to California school districts after another transgender athlete from Jurupa Valley High School, 16-year-old AB Hernandez, won multiple medals at the state high school track and field championships despite President Trump demanding on social media that she not be allowed to compete.

The letter came despite attempts by the state to appease concerns.

After Trump’s online threats, for example, the CIF updated its rules for transgender competitors. As a result, Hernandez was allowed to compete at the state finals in the girls’ long jump, high jump and triple jump, but her qualifying did not result in the exclusion of any cisgender girl.

In addition, while Hernandez was awarded several medals, those medals were also awarded to cisgender girls who otherwise would have claimed them had Hernandez not been competing — with the girls sharing those spots on the medal podiums.

Supporters of the rule change said it eliminated concerns about cisgender girls losing opportunities to compete and win to transgender girls, but critics said the changes did not go far enough, and that transgender athletes needed to be fully banned from competition.

Dhillon’s letter demanding school districts certify that such bans were being implemented made no mention of the CIF’s rule change.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the nation’s anti-discrimination laws apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether those complaining of bias are white or Black, gay or straight.

In a short and unanimous opinion, the justices rejected as outdated and mistaken the view that “members of a majority group” must show more evidence of discrimination before they can sue and win.

Instead, the justices said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has always prohibited workplace discrimination against “any individual” who suffers discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin and sex, including sexual orientation.

The law “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

The ruling revives a discrimination lawsuit brought by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who said she was demoted and discriminated against by a lesbian who became her supervisor. She was then replaced by a gay man who had less experience.

Ames is a heterosexual woman. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and alleged she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation.

But a federal judge rejected her discrimination claim, and the 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati affirmed that decision. In doing so, the judges said she could not point to “background circumstances” or statistical evidence suggesting that hers was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

Law students at the University of Virginia Law School appealed her case to the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the 6th Circuit and several other courts continue to use an outdated, two-track approach to discrimination claims.

This is not the standard in much of the nation, however. For example, they said the 9th Circuit Court based in California does not follow this approach, which would require more proof of discrimination from whites or men or heterosexuals.

But the law students said the court should hear the Ames case and clarify the law nationwide.

Although the case did not directly involve DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, it gained added attention because of President Trump’s drive to rid the government of DEI policies.

Jackson said the Supreme Court for more than 50 years has steadily rejected the view that discrimination laws apply differently to different groups of people.

In Griggs vs. Duke Power in 1971, “we said that ‘[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.’”

A few years later, the court rejected the two-track approach, she said, “holding that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.”

Lawyers for the Biden and Trump administrations had urged the court to overrule the 6th Circuit and make clear there is no double standard for deciding discrimination claims

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the “majority” in the workplace differs by workplace.

“Women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction.”

“Defining the ‘majority’ is even more difficult in the context of race,” he wrote. “American families have become increasingly multicultural, and attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time.”

The court’s ruling in Ames vs. Ohio Department of Youth Services said the Ohio court should reopen and reconsider Ames’ claim of discrimination.

Experts in discrimination law said the decision will have an effect in some regions but not others.

“As a practical matter, more ‘reverse discrimination’ lawsuits may survive a motion to dismiss,” said Evan Parness, an attorney at the Covington law firm in New York.

Although the decision doesn’t significantly change how federal district courts in California operate, it has implications for some courts in other parts of the country that require the higher burden of proof, said Elizabeth Beske, professor of law at American University in Washington.

The “background circumstances” rule was first applied in D.C. courts, after a white man sued the Baltimore and Ohio railroad company arguing he was discriminated against when jobs were instead given to Black and female applicants. The court held that “it defie[d] common sense to suggest that the promotion of a Black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.”

Columbia Law professor Olatunde C. Johnson said the “opinion is not surprising. It depends on a straightforward and sensible statutory reading of Title VII. The 6th Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ approach was not typical, so I don’t expect the case to dramatically change employment discrimination litigation on the ground.”

Brian McGinnis, an attorney with the firm Fox Rothschild, said because the decision was unanimous, which is rare, it shows an uncontroversial and “pretty straightforward” perspective that there is no historical basis in case law for requiring extra proof from white, heterosexual or other majority groups.

And it represents an effort by the court to streamline and eliminate the need for additional steps in litigation, he said.

There is some question as to how the change is applied, but McGinnis doesn’t expect any issues.

“There is some potential for mischief, but I don’t think it will have much change on the day-to-day operations of many employers or courts,” McGinnis said. “The short answer is, it should not change much.”

Savage reported from Washington and Hussain from Los Angeles.

Several Vietnamese American-owned nail salons in Orange County have sued California, alleging the state’s labor code is discriminating against their businesses.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana on Friday, alleges that the state’s labor code violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law by forcing nail technicians to be classified as employees.

The suit argues that professionals in the beauty industry for years have operated as independent contractors, renting space in a salon and bringing in their own clients. That changed at the beginning of 2025, when nail technicians under the labor code became required to be classified as employees, the lawsuit said.

State Assemblyman Tri Ta (R-Westminster), who represents Little Saigon and surrounding communities, said his office has fielded much concern from Vietnamese American nail salon owners.

“Their lives have turned upside down overnight,” Ta said at a news conference Monday morning. “It is not just unfair, it is discrimination.”

The switch in labor law came in 2019 when Assembly Bill 5, a sweeping law governing worker classification rules across various industries, was approved. It codified a California Supreme Court decision creating a stricter test to judge whether a worker should be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor.

AB 5 sought to crack down on industries in which many workers are misclassified as independent contractors, who are not afforded protections including minimum wage, overtime pay and workers’ compensation that employees have access to. But various industries have said AB 5 targets them unfairly, creating an uneven playing field for businesses.

Some professions received carve-outs, including doctors, accountants, real estate agents and hairdressers. Others such as truckers, commercial janitors and physical therapists must abide by the tighter classification rules.

Some implementation of the law was staggered to give industries, including nail technicians, time to adapt.

But Ân Tran, who owns two franchisee locations of Happy Nails & Spa that are among the businesses suing the state, said the law remains burdensome. Hiring employees is more costly, and it’s unfair that businesses hiring hairdressers, aestheticians and other beauty workers aren’t subject to the requirement, he said.

“We don’t have customers all the time. That’s going to cost us a lot more to pay them for the downtime when they don’t have any customers,” Tran said in an interview.

The requirement also defies the flexible work culture and control over their clients that many manicurists prefer, Tran said.

Emily Micelle was among several manicurists who spoke in support of the salon owners’ lawsuit at the Monday news conference.

“No one forced me to be here today. I chose to be here because I want to express my side of the story,” Micelle said. “Being [an independent contractor] means I can work for myself, I can be my own boss, I can create my own branding within the business, I choose my own hours, I choose my own clients. … The law means to protect us workers, but [being an employee] doesn’t work for everyone.”

The lawsuit describes how the nail salon industry in California became dominated by Vietnamese workers in recent decades, when Vietnamese refugees began fleeing to the U.S. in large numbers in 1975 after the fall of Saigon in America’s failed military intervention in Southeast Asia.

The industry “has become synonymous with the Vietnamese community,” the lawsuit said, with more than 82% of nail technicians in California being Vietnamese American and some 85% women.

The legal action highlights the tension between how small businesses can serve as a pathway for immigrants and others to build wealth, and how workers at times might have little formal recourse for low wages or unsafe work conditions, experts have said.

Researchers with the UCLA Labor Center last year analyzed U.S. Census Bureau data and released a report estimating that the hourly median wage for nail salon workers in 2021 was $10.94, below the then-$13 minimum wage for small businesses.

In 2017, four women sued a salon in Tustin, alleging that the owners had created bogus time records and paychecks to create an illusion that manicurists were paid lawfully by the hour, but instead workers were compensated based on a 60% commission system where their pay was further deducted for using business supplies, such as spa chairs.

Businesses that filed suit include multiple locations of Blue Nail Bar, Happy Nails & Spa and Holly & Hudson Nail Lounge.

A group of politicians in France are pushing for a ban on adults-only holidays in the country, arguing that the exclusion of children from such spaces is discrimination

Parents and campaigners are calling for an end to adults-only holidays, branding the exclusion of children “violence”.

For many, the idea of a break away from the hubbub of a child-packed home where they can relax around the pool, a cocktail in hand and a book in the other, without the sound of infant wails shattering the silence, seems like a good time.

For members of the growing pro-children-on-holiday movement in France, banning anyone of any age from accessing a certain hotel or resort is completely wrong.

Laurence Rossignol, a socialist senator, is to table a private member’s bill in the French senate that would make it illegal to ban children from such establishments, the Times reported. Sarah El Haïry, the French high commissioner for childhood, has said that government lawyers are looking into whether it would be possible to take legal action against places that exclude families.

READ MORE: Ryanair introduces new route to ‘beautiful’ European city that’s perfect for Christmas

“A child shouts, laughs and moves … we are institutionalising the idea that silence is a luxury and the absence of children is a luxury,” she told the French international radio station RFI. Ms El Haïry criticised the “no kids trend”, claiming it amounted to “violence against children”.

Senator Rossignol added: “Children are not a nuisance. We cannot accept that some people decide they no longer want to tolerate a particular section of the population, in this case children. We cannot allow our society to be organised around our intolerance of others, where people organise themselves to keep their distance from anyone who does not fit into their idea of their neighbours.”

Travel Companies Union roughly estimates that three per cent of holiday venues in France are adult-only facilities.

The topic of how children fit into society is a live one in France. The French Federation of Nurseries has made repeated calls to lawmakers to ensure children’s right “to make noise”.

This has been coupled with rising concerns about how much screen time children have, while the High Council for Family, Children and Age has warned that a lack of space for kids to play outdoors could have “harmful consequences for their physical and mental health”.

Not everyone is happy with the idea of an adults-only holiday ban. Sara Lewis told the Guardian that she thinks a ban would be a “totally unreasonable deprivation of people’s liberty”. “It amounts to forcing people to accept others’ kids, of which there’s more than enough of already,” the retired copyeditor from Brussels said.

Emilie, a stay-at-home mother, agreed with the politicians that such holidays treated children as “pariahs”, but questioned whether the ban would get to the root cause. In her opinion, it is wrong to create spaces where adults can live parallel lives free from children.

“I think it’s more about the French relationship with children. There is a popular saying in France about children: Les enfants doivent être vus, et non entendus, which means children should be seen, not heard,” Emilie said.

NEW YORK — The Trump administration is accusing Columbia University of violating the civil rights of Jewish students by “acting with deliberate indifference” toward what it describes as rampant antisemitism on campus.

The finding was announced late Thursday by the Health and Human Services Department, marking the latest blow for an Ivy League school already shaken by federal cutbacks and sustained government pressure to crack down on student speech.

It comes hours after the Department of Homeland Security said it would revoke Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, a major escalation in the administration’s monthslong attack on higher education.

The civil rights division of HHS said it had found Columbia in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which blocks federal funding recipients from discrimination based on race, color or national origin. That final category, the press release notes, includes “discrimination against individuals that is based on their actual or perceived Israeli or Jewish identity or ancestry.”

The announcement did not include new sanctions against Columbia, which is already facing $400 million in federal cuts by the Trump administration over its response to pro-Palestinian campus protests.

A spokesperson for Columbia said the university is currently in negotiations with the government about resolving its claims of antisemitism.

“We understand this finding is part of our ongoing discussions with the government,” the spokesperson said in an email. “Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism and all forms of harassment and discrimination on our campus.”

The civil rights investigation into Columbia was based on witness interviews, media reports and other sources, according to HHS. The findings were not made public. A spokesperson did not response to a request for further information.

“The findings carefully document the hostile environment Jewish students at Columbia University have had to endure for over 19 months, disrupting their education, safety, and well-being,” Anthony Archeval, acting director of the HHS civil rights office, said in a statement.

Last spring, Columbia became the epicenter of protests against the war in Gaza, spurring a national movement of campus demonstrations that demanded universities cut ties with Israel.

At the time, some Jewish students and faculty complained about being harassed during the demonstrations or ostracized because of their faith or their support of Israel.

Those who participated in Columbia’s protests, including some Jewish students, have said they are protesting Israel’s actions against Palestinians and have forcefully denied allegations of antisemitism.

Many have also accused the university of capitulating to the Trump administration’s demands — including placing its Middle East studies department under new leadership — at the expense of academic freedom and protecting foreign students.

At a commencement ceremony earlier this week, a speech by Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, was met with loud boos by graduates and chants of “free Palestine.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.