Explainer

Directors' Duties

Advancing DEI Initiative

The smallest category of anti-DEI lawsuits is those in which activist shareholders of a company file a lawsuit against a company’s directors or officers, usually claiming that the defendants made misleading statements about DEI to shareholders, or violated their duties to the company by engaging in unlawful forms of DEI.

These lawsuits have been unsuccessful so far. Courts generally defer to the business judgment of corporate directors and are not inclined to micro-manage companies’ decisions about DEI. The Starbucks lawsuit (National Center for Public Policy Research v. Schultz et al) is a good example here, where the judge concluded his opinion as follows:

Plaintiff is apparently unhappy with its investment decisions in so-called “woke” corporations. This Court is uncertain what that term means but Plaintiff uses it repeatedly as somehow negative. This Complaint has no business being before this Court and resembles nothing more than a political platform. Whether DEI and ESG initiatives are good for addressing long simmering inequalities in American society is up for the political branches to decide. If Plaintiff remains so concerned with Starbucks’ DEI and ESG initiatives and programs, the American version of capitalism allows them to freely reallocate their capital elsewhere.

We do not expect these lawsuits to be a significant concern for the practice of DEI, but we monitor them anyway to provide a comprehensive picture of the legal landscape.