DEI Part Two: The Power and Legacy of Disparate Impact

In Part One, we examined the dismantling of Disparate Impact protections by the Trump administration through Executive Order 13771 and how that move undermines the heart of civil rights enforcement. Now, in Part Two, we turn our attention to the legal backbone of Disparate Impact—demonstrating not only why it matters but also how it has shaped justice for generations.

Disparate Impact refers to practices, policies, or standards that may appear neutral on their face but have disproportionately harmful effects on protected groups—especially along racial, ethnic, or gender lines. Crucially, the doctrine does not require proof of discriminatory intent. The outcome itself—if it disproportionately harms a protected class—is enough to warrant scrutiny and potential remedy¹.

These cases are not theoretical—they represent concrete legal victories that changed lives, reformed systems, and held institutions accountable.

Case Key Legal Holding

These are not just legal footnotes. They are evidence that Disparate Impact is real, actionable, and necessary.

When the Trump administration rescinded Disparate Impact enforcement through Executive Order 14281, they didn’t just change policy—they removed a shield¹³.

They eliminated the very tool used to hold corporations and government agencies accountable when outcomes—not intentions—betray bias. And it’s not just theoretical.

Take a look at the data: states like Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi—which have some of the highest rates of employment discrimination complaints—also have some of the largest Black populations¹⁴. Without Disparate Impact, complaints in these regions can be dismissed if there’s no explicit racist intent—even if the outcome shows racial disparity.

That’s not justice. That’s abandonment.

Let’s talk about “wokeness.”

A word that once meant social awareness and moral vigilance has been hijacked and weaponized. Today, “woke” is used sarcastically to ridicule basic decency and historical truth.

Conservatives mock it when we:

They call it “woke.” But what they really mean is: “Go back to sleep.”

Let’s be clear: the same people deriding “wokeness” rarely read the Civil Rights Act, don’t understand the Supreme Court decisions that underpin it, and certainly don’t grasp the historical realities faced by Black and Brown communities.

This isn’t a debate over vocabulary. It’s an attempt to mock truth and erase accountability.

If you’re “woke,” you are awake to injustice. If you’re awake, you cannot pretend the law has always protected everyone equally. And if you’re reading this, chances are—you didn’t know half of what’s been written here.

So, let me be blunt: the opposite of being woke is being asleep. And the people mocking “wokeness” are trying to lull the nation back to sleep—right before our rights are erased.

We’re all busy—trying to raise families, build careers, and survive. But we must stay informed. Because if no one reads these cases, watches the laws, or fights the rollbacks, then we’re complicit in our silence.

Here’s the truth:

In Part Three, we’ll dive into the foundational laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. We’ll examine how executive orders helped enforce these laws—and why executive orders, by nature, are vulnerable.

Eric Lawrence Frazier, MBA
Your trusted advisor in business and wealth
www.ericfrazier-com-869976.hostingersite.com | www.thepowerisnow.com
NMLS #451807 | CA DRE #01143484
Schedule a consultation: https://calendly.com/ericfrazier/real-estate-mortgage-consultation-clientsFootnotes
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (n.d.). Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices. https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices

Trump, D. J. (2025, April 28). Executive Order 14281: Restoring equality of opportunity and meritocracy. Federal Register, 90(82), 17537–17539. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/28/2025-07378/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy