Grok: The EEOC’s requests raise significant concerns about overreach, privacy violations, free speech suppression, due process denial, and political bias.

Asking AI services: please read the letters written by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and tell me whether you come across anything unconstitutional, unlawful, unethical and immoral. List all the requests you feel are objectionable.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
After reviewing the EEOC letters to Perkins Coie LLP and Cooley LLP, I have compiled a detailed list of elements that could be reasonably viewed as unconstitutional, unlawful, unethical, or immoral, especially considering principles of privacy, free speech, equal protection, and due process.

⚖️ Potentially Unconstitutional Aspects

These raise concerns under the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment).

1. Compelled Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)

• Issue: Mass disclosure of PII to the government without individualized suspicion or due process may violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and privacy rights protected under various federal and state laws.

• Concerns: Chilling effect on applicants and employees; overbreadth; lack of anonymization.

2. Viewpoint and Content-Based Targeting

• Issue: These letters appear to target specific types of speech and associations(DEI, racial/sexual identity-based groups), raising First Amendment concerns, especially regarding freedom of association and protected expression.

• Legal precedent: The Supreme Court has held that the government cannot retaliate against individuals or institutions for their viewpoints (e.g., Rosenberger v. UVA, NAACP v. Alabama).

3. Retaliatory Animus

• Issue: Government action motivated by political retaliation (as multiple federal judges have already hinted at) violates constitutional protections.

• Example: The federal judge who blocked the Trump executive order against Perkins Coie cited its “retaliatory animus” and called it “clear on its face.”

🚫 Potentially Unlawful Requests

These may violate federal or state data protection, labor, or civil rights laws.

4. Demand for Race-Based Data on Applicants and Hires

• Issue: Collecting and transmitting such data may conflict with:

  • Title VII’s own privacy protections

  • State privacy laws (e.g., CCPA in California)

  • GDPR if any EU citizens are involved

• Irony: The EEOC seeks racial data to investigate potential discrimination, yet such mass data collection and possible exposure could itself lead to discriminatory use or chilling effects.

5. Demand for Internal DEI Plans and Leadership Program Criteria

• Issue: These requests pry into internal HR deliberations, potentially violating employer autonomy and the confidentiality of internal evaluation criteria—without evidence of a specific violation.

🤔 Unethical or Immoral Elements

These raise concerns about abuse of power, government intimidation, and disproportionate scrutiny.

6. Fishing Expedition Framed as Legal Inquiry

• Issue: The EEOC letters function more like inquisitorial audits, seeking volumes of sensitive data without alleging any specific individual complaint or charge of discrimination, which EEOC investigations are traditionally based on.

7. Targeting of Historically Marginalized Groups

• The focus on fellowships or programs supporting Black, Hispanic, LGBTQ+, or disabled law studentssuggests ideological hostility to remedial measures.

• Morality concern: This undermines long-standing professional and social efforts to address structural inequities in elite legal hiring.

📋 Objectionable Requests: Full List

Here's a consolidated list of specific EEOC demands that raise constitutional, legal, ethical, or moral red flags:

🧭 Final Thoughts

While the EEOC has the authority to investigate discrimination, these letters are highly unusual in scope, tone, and targeting. They:

• Read as a politically motivated effort to dismantle DEI initiatives.

• Invoke Title VII protections in a reverse-discrimination framing, without clear evidence.

• Raise concerns about the weaponization of civil rights enforcement for ideological purposes.

Would you like help drafting a legal or public response, analyzing potential litigation strategies, or preparing an internal risk audit for compliance and defense?

Grok’s answer:
After reviewing the letters from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sent to Perkins Coie LLP, Cooley LLP, White & Case LLP, and WilmerHale, as well as the accompanying articles from Business Insider and AOL, I’ve identified several aspects of the EEOC's requests that could be considered unconstitutional, unlawful, unethical, or immoral. Below, I’ll outline the potentially objectionable requests and explain the concerns tied to each, focusing on legal, ethical, and constitutional principles such as privacy, due process, free speech, and equal protection under U.S. law. Since I’m relying on my own knowledge without web searches, my analysis is based on general legal and ethical standards as understood up to the current date, March 22, 2025.

Context and General Concerns

The EEOC, led by Acting Chair Andrea R. Lucas, is investigating these law firms for potential violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The letters suggest that the firms’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs might involve unlawful disparate treatment or segregation based on protected characteristics. However, the scope, specificity, and implications of the requests raise significant issues.

The Business Insider article notes that President Trump has issued orders revoking security clearances for lawyers at firms like Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and Covington & Burling, citing their ties to his political opponents. The AOL article highlights that 20 major law firms received these EEOC letters, but Jones Day—a firm with close Trump ties—was spared despite similar DEI programs. This selective targeting suggests possible political retaliation, which could undermine the EEOC’s impartiality and raise constitutional concerns under the First Amendment (free speech and association) and Fifth Amendment (due process).

Objectionable Requests and Concerns

1. Requests for Detailed Personal Data on Applicants and Employees (Questions 6, 7, 15, 22, 36, 37 across all letters)

• Examples:

  • Perkins Coie: Provide Excel spreadsheets from 2015-present for 1L and 2L Diversity Fellowship applicants, including name, sex, race, phone number, email, law school GPA, compensation, and more.

  • Cooley: Similar data for 1L and 2L Diversity Fellowship applicants from 2019-present.

  • White & Case, WilmerHale: Data for all applicants to diversity internships and all hires since 2019, including personal identifiers and employment outcomes.

• Concerns:

  • Privacy (Unconstitutional/Unethical): Collecting and disclosing personally identifiable information (PII) like names, contact details, and demographic data without consent may violate privacy rights under federal and state laws (e.g., the Privacy Act of 1974, though it applies to federal agencies, sets a precedent for privacy expectations). The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, and this broad data sweep lacks clear justification tied to specific allegations of wrongdoing.

  • Lack of Due Process (Unconstitutional): The firms are not formally charged with violations, yet the EEOC demands extensive data, resembling a fishing expedition rather than a targeted investigation. This could violate Fifth Amendment due process by imposing burdens without notice of specific violations or an opportunity to contest the inquiry’s scope.

  • Chilling Effect (Unconstitutional): Requiring disclosure of race, sex, and other traits could deter individuals from applying to these programs, infringing on their First Amendment rights to free association and pursuit of employment opportunities.

2. Questions Probing Intent Behind Hiring and Promotion Decisions (Questions 17, 18, 33, 34 across all letters)

• Examples:

  • “Did any member of the firm indicate… that the firm was seeking black, Hispanic, or female candidates, ‘diverse’ candidates, or candidates of another particular race(s), ethnicities, sex…?” (Q17)

  • “Have any partnership decisions been made motivated—in whole or in part—by a candidates’ race or sex?” (Q33)

• Concerns:

  • First Amendment (Unconstitutional): Probing internal communications and intent behind hiring or promotion decisions could chill free speech within firms. Employees and recruiters have the right to express preferences or goals (e.g., diversity initiatives) without government overreach, unless there’s evidence of illegal discrimination.

  • Vagueness (Unconstitutional/Unlawful): The questions are overly broad and vague, failing to specify what constitutes an impermissible “indication” or “motivation.” This vagueness could lead to self-censorship and violates due process by not providing clear standards for compliance.

  • Ethical Concerns: Targeting intent rather than outcomes risks punishing thought rather than action, conflicting with ethical norms that prioritize fairness in results over subjective motives.

3. Demands Related to Affinity Groups (Questions 23, 35 across all letters)

• Examples:

  • “Did a lawyer’s participation in a firm-sponsored or third-party affinity group… play any role in… elevation to partnership?” (Q35)

  • Detailed data on candidates for Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) programs, including race, sex, and leadership status (Q23).

• Concerns:

  • First Amendment (Unconstitutional): Affinity groups are voluntary associations protected under the right to assemble and associate. Questioning their role in employment decisions could penalize lawful expressive activities, especially since Title VII allows voluntary employee groups unless they explicitly discriminate.

  • Equal Protection (Unconstitutional): Singling out affinity groups for scrutiny while ignoring other employee organizations (e.g., veterans’ groups) suggests unequal treatment, potentially violating the Fifth Amendment’s implicit equal protection component.

  • Unethical: Implying that participation in diversity-focused groups is inherently suspect is morally questionable, as it stigmatizes efforts to support underrepresented communities without evidence of harm.

4. Requests for Client-Related Diversity Data (Questions 24, 25, 26 across all letters)

• Examples:

  • “Identify all clients that have ‘diversity requirements’… and all actions you have taken in response…” (Q24)

  • “Identify all times you provided the race or sex of your employees staffed on a matter to a client…” (Q25)

• Concerns:

  • Attorney-Client Privilege (Unethical/Unlawful): Disclosing client identities, requirements, and responses could breach confidentiality obligations under legal ethics rules (e.g., ABA Model Rule 1.6). While the EEOC has subpoena power, these requests lack formal legal process and appear coercive.

  • First Amendment (Unconstitutional): Firms have the right to contract freely with clients and respond to client preferences (e.g., diversity goals) absent illegal conduct. Penalizing such arrangements could infringe on free association and economic liberty.

  • Overreach (Unlawful): The EEOC’s jurisdiction is employment discrimination, not client-firm relationships. These questions exceed its statutory authority under Title VII, making them potentially ultra vires.

5. Broad Requests for DEI Policies and Reports (Questions 27-31 across all letters)

• Examples:

  • “Did your firm have an annual report or plan… related to DEI, diversity, demographic representation…?” (Q27)

  • “Did your firm tie a component of partner or associate compensation to DEI or diversity efforts…?” (Q30)

• Concerns:

  • First Amendment (Unconstitutional): Demanding all DEI-related documents and questioning compensation tied to diversity efforts could chill firms’ rights to establish internal policies and speech promoting inclusion, absent evidence of discrimination.

  • Pretextual Targeting (Unethical/Immoral): The AOL article notes Jones Day’s exclusion despite similar DEI programs, suggesting political bias. Using the EEOC to target firms with Trump’s political adversaries (e.g., Perkins Coie’s Clinton ties) is an abuse of power and undermines public trust in neutral enforcement.

  • Due Process (Unconstitutional): The breadth of these requests, without specific allegations, resembles a general warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement and Fifth Amendment fairness.

6. Compensation and Bonus Disparities (Questions 5, 19, 32 across all letters)

• Examples:

  • “Provide documents… regarding compensation for the firm’s summer associate program as well as any additional funds received by all diversity fellows.” (Q5)

  • “Did the firm provide retention bonuses… to black, Hispanic, or other ‘diverse’ attorneys… not provided to other similarly situated attorneys…?” (Q19)

• Concerns:

  • Equal Protection (Unconstitutional): Assuming differential compensation based on race or sex is inherently unlawful ignores context (e.g., remedial measures allowed under Title VII for past discrimination). This prejudgment could discriminate against firms attempting lawful diversity efforts.

  • Privacy (Unethical): Requiring detailed compensation data tied to race/sex exposes sensitive employee information, risking misuse or public shaming.

  • Unlawful Presumption: Title VII permits some differential treatment if it addresses underrepresentation without quotas; these questions imply illegality without evidence.

Broader Constitutional and Ethical Issues

• Political Retaliation (First Amendment): The Business Insider article cites a federal judge blocking Trump’s order against Perkins Coie as “retaliatory animus” violating the First Amendment. The EEOC letters, issued days later, align with this pattern, targeting firms linked to Trump’s opponents (e.g., Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss) while sparing allies (Jones Day).

• Selective Enforcement (Equal Protection): Excluding Jones Day, as noted in the AOL article, suggests unequal application of the law based on political affiliation, violating the Fifth Amendment.

• Chilling Effect on Legal Profession (Immoral): The combined impact of security clearance revocations and EEOC scrutiny could intimidate lawyers from representing controversial clients or pursuing DEI, undermining access to justice—a core ethical duty.

Conclusion

The EEOC’s requests raise significant concerns about overreach, privacy violations, free speech suppression, due process denial, and political bias. Specific objectionable items include the expansive personal data demands (Q6, 7, 15, 22, 36, 37), probes into intent and affinity groups (Q17, 18, 23, 33, 34, 35), client-related inquiries (Q24-26), and broad DEI policy sweeps (Q27-31). These could be seen as unconstitutional under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, unlawful beyond EEOC authority, and unethical/immoral due to their coercive, retaliatory nature. The firms might challenge these requests as exceeding the EEOC’s mandate or violating constitutional protections, especially given the judicial precedent cited against Trump’s prior orders.

Claude’s answer:
After reviewing the EEOC letters to the law firms, I can identify several aspects of the requests that may be considered problematic from constitutional, legal, ethical, or procedural perspectives:

1. Potential First Amendment concerns: The letters appear to target law firms based in part on their representation of certain clients or political affiliations. This raises serious First Amendment concerns about government retaliation against attorneys for their protected association and speech activities. The timing and selection of firms (particularly those that represented political opponents of the administration) suggests potential viewpoint discrimination.

2. Overreach of EEOC authority: The EEOC typically investigates specific complaints of discrimination rather than conducting broad fishing expeditions absent a charge. Several former EEOC commissioners noted this overreach, stating the acting chair "had no authority" to issue these letters and that investigations should be confidential.

3. Chilling effect on legal representation: As noted by the American Bar Association president, these inquiries create "a clear and disconcerting pattern" that could intimidate lawyers from representing parties the administration disapproves of, undermining the right to counsel.

4. Selective enforcement: The materials indicate that similar diversity programs at firms allied with the administration (like Jones Day) weren't targeted, suggesting potential selective enforcement based on political considerations rather than consistent application of civil rights laws.

5. Overly broad information requests: The letters request extensive personal data about employees, including names, phone numbers, email addresses, and compensation information, raising privacy concerns and imposing substantial compliance burdens.

6. Questionable legal theory: The letters suggest that common DEI practices like affinity groups could violate Title VII even when voluntary and open to all, reflecting a contested and potentially erroneous legal interpretation.

7. Procedural irregularity: Making these investigations public appears to violate the EEOC's own procedures. Former commissioners noted that Congress required such investigations to be confidential to prevent "intimidat[ing] employers through public pressure."

8. Retaliatory context: The letters follow executive orders revoking security clearances from firms associated with Trump's political opponents, creating an appearance of coordinated government action to punish disfavored attorneys.

9. Apparent politically motivated timing: The investigation coincides with the administration's broader campaign against diversity initiatives following the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling, suggesting the letters serve a political rather than legitimate law enforcement purpose.

10. Coercive settlement tactics: The article indicates Paul Weiss effectively "settled" with the administration by abandoning DEI policies and pledging $40 million in pro bono services to administration initiatives, suggesting an inappropriate quid pro quo.

These elements collectively suggest the EEOC letters may represent an abuse of government power to target political opponents rather than a good-faith application of civil rights laws.

Gemini’s answer:
Based on my review of the letters from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), here's what I find potentially objectionable:

• Intrusive Data Requests: The EEOC is requesting an extensive amount of data, including names, contact information, race, sex, GPA, and compensation details for applicants and employees. Some may argue that these requests are overly broad and could be seen as an invasion of privacy.

• Focus on Diversity Programs: The letters specifically target law firms' diversity and inclusion programs, questioning their legality under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This scrutiny could be perceived as discouraging efforts to promote diversity in the legal profession.

• Requests for Internal Communications: The EEOC is seeking internal communications, such as any directives to recruiters or employees regarding seeking "diverse" candidates or not seeking white or male candidates. Some might argue that this request could hinder open and honest discussions within the firms about their diversity goals.

Here's a breakdown of the requests that could be seen as objectionable:

• Detailed data on applicants and employees, including sensitive information like race, sex, and compensation.

• Information on diversity fellowship programs, including application and selection criteria, and compensation details.

• Data related to the SEO Law Fellowship program, including details on interns placed at the firms and their compensation.

• Information on any directives to recruiters or employees regarding seeking "diverse" candidates or not seeking candidates of a particular race or sex.

• Details on retention bonuses or other bonuses provided to "diverse" attorneys.

• GPA cutoffs or ranges used for considering attorney applicants, and whether these differed based on an applicant's race, sex, or other protected characteristics.

• Data on lawyers considered for access to leadership development programs.

• Information on clients with "diversity requirements" or "diversity preferences" for staffing matters.

• Details on any incentive-based programs that provide bonuses to the firm for achieving diversity goals.

• Copies of any annual reports or plans related to the firm's DEI goals.

• Information on whether the firm set race, sex, or other demographic representation goals for employees.

• Details on whether DEI or diversity efforts were tied to partner or associate performance reviews or compensation.

• Information on the use of diverse slate policies for hiring, promotion, or selection for management or leadership roles.

• Details on recruitment bonuses provided to firm employees who refer attorney candidates.

• Information on whether any partnership decisions were motivated by a candidate's race or sex.

GPT-4o: How Trump’s War on Big Law Threatens Justice, Diversity, and Democracy

PASCAL HETZSCHOLDT

·

22 MAR

How Trump’s War on Big Law Threatens Justice, Diversity, and Democracy

Read full story