(Reuters) – Next Monday, two partners of conservative litigation boutique Consovoy McCarthy will appear before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a group called Students for Fair Admissions. Consovoy’s attorneys would argue that Harvard and North Carolina must stop considering race as a factor in college admissions.
The Harvard-University of North Carolina lawsuit, spearheaded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, is widely viewed by conservative Supreme Court members as an opportunity to put an end to programs aimed at promoting diversity on college campuses. It is considered
Consovoy McCarthy already has the following targets in sight:
Last month, the law firm filed two lawsuits on behalf of the new nonprofit Do No Harm. Do No Harm’s mission is to “Protect Patients and Physicians from Awakened Medicine”. [and] Racist ideologies threaten the quality of care in America.” (Blum is a member of the group’s board of directors, according to New York state charity records.)
Two of Do No Harm’s lawsuits, one against pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc and the other against health policy nonprofit Project Hope and its magazine Health Affairs, are black, Latino and Native American lawsuits. Alleges that fellowship programs for American and other minority candidates discriminate against white and Asian applicants. It violates civil rights laws and several other state and federal laws.
In both cases, Consovoy McCarthy claims that an unidentified member of Do No Harm was injured because he was ineligible to apply for the fellowship. The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction barring Pfizer and Project Hope from proceeding with the application process.
Attorneys for Project Hope Morgan Lewis and Bocchias told U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of Washington, D.C. that the group’s fellowship program does not actually exclude white candidates, and that the application After Tuesday’s hearing, Moss told Project Hope and Health Affairs that the now-closed application process for next year’s fellowship will be reopened to Do No Harm members. requested to submit a status report indicating whether or not it will be allowed to apply.
But Pfizer’s case seems to me to be a more significant precursor to the challenges companies can face in trying to promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace. For those who view race-based considerations as racist, it is the logical progression from ending affirmative action in college admissions to blocking corporate attempts to promote diversity.
This puts big companies in a tight spot. They are under pressure from shareholders, institutional investors and, in many cases, their own employees to ensure that their workforce is diverse from top to bottom. And, at least according to Pfizer’s attorneys for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, longstanding Supreme Court precedent allows them to act with that goal in mind.
Pfizer told Manhattan U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon in a brief statement opposing the Do No Harm interim injunction to pursue non-discriminatory goals, such as ensuring workplace opportunities for minority employees. said the law allows the use of racial selection criteria if it helps. .
Lawyers for Pfizer Paul Weiss, including former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, referred my question to a Pfizer spokesperson, who declined to comment. Thomas McCarthy, Cameron Norris and Frank Chang of Consovoy McCarthy did not respond to my e-mail inquiry.
Pfizer’s brief states that the company’s Breakthrough Fellowship Program is geared to accomplish exactly what Congress and the Supreme Court have encouraged: “legal, non-discriminatory use of racial selection standards. It claims to provide a “strong evidence base” to “build a racially representative workforce.” Upending the diversity of the communities Pfizer serves and the impact of historical discrimination in the workplace.
The company said it designed the fellowship program to address “difficulties in recruiting and retaining” minority college graduates and master’s degree holders. The program will select 20 college seniors for her nine-year track to leadership at Pfizer. The fellowship begins with a summer internship after her junior year, followed by her two-year post-university job as an analyst at Pfizer, company-sponsored graduate studies, and managerial positions after completing her graduate degree. It continues until the promise of
According to Pfizer’s profile, thousands of high-caliber candidates have submitted applications for fellowships. Her 40 Fellows, selected in her first two years, are academic stars who have conducted groundbreaking research projects, worked in local health clinics, and led immunization campaigns. is the future leader that you hoped to attract.
The company stressed that the program will not disadvantage employees or job seekers who are not eligible for the Breakthrough Fellowship. Pfizer also offers other opportunities for paid internships, early career development, and graduate tuition reimbursement. “No white or Asian American has lost a job or promotion because of the fellowship,” the company outline states.
Pfizer also asserted a series of technical defenses to the Do No Harm injunction. Do No Harm has no claim under several federal laws cited in the complaint because the company is neither a healthcare provider nor a recipient of federal funding for the Breakthrough Fellowship, the brief said. said.
Most importantly, Pfizer said both the group and the anonymous Do No Harm members said they were eligible for the fellowship, but were eligible to sue because of their race. According to Pfizer, the anonymous members do not indicate that they would have been selected from among the myriad of qualified applicants (and in any case establish their status through an anonymous, no-swear declaration). I can not do it). Pfizer said the group did not claim any injuries, so it does not stand alone.
These technical arguments may end up deciding the case. But the real heart of Pfizer’s brief is that “decades of well-established precedent” confirms that affirmative action programs serve the public good by addressing gross racial imbalances. The company’s conclusion that the
As you might expect, one of the cases cited by Pfizer is the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. The ruling found that the University of Michigan Law School did not violate the Equal Protection Clause in view of the race of its enrollees. Decision.
Of course, that precedent will be challenged in the Supreme Court next week – thanks in no small part to Consovoy McCarthy’s Do No Harm lawyers.
read more:
Pfizer Faces Lawsuit Says Minority Fellowship Program Helps Public Interest
Lawsuit Alleges Pfizer’s Fellowship Program Is Biased Against Whites, Asian Americans
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Racially Sensitive College Admissions
Our standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect Reuters News’ commitment to integrity, independence and freedom from bias under its Trust Principles.
.
