DEAR EDITOR:

At this writing, our current president has signed 270 “Executive Orders” and there is no doubt it will continue to grow. This isn’t anything new. Past presidents have signed such orders, but the average is right around 250 for their entire four-year term.

What exactly is an “Executive Order?”

An “Executive Order” is an action taken by the sitting president that directs federal agencies how to implement current laws and changes in administering such laws. It also can be a presidential proclamation, the most impactful action being the “amending” or “revoking” of a prior order, set mandates, established agencies, e.g. “Laws.”

It is usually the revoking of prior orders that creates confusion and interruption to current social and business activities.

For example, the recent revoking of the DEI has been questioned by many as to the impact it may have on other governmental mandates, e.g.:

l Civil Rights Act of 1964

l Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1965

Let’s take a quick look at the two:

CRA — Protects discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age and disability in a broader application, e.g. education, housing, voting rights and civil retaliation.

EEOC — A federal agency that ensures that no discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age or disability in the workplace takes place. In other words, the EEOC was the “enforcement” power behind the CRA.

Both prevent discrimination, but they work differently than the previous DEI proclamation.

DEI established a voluntary initiative that promotes fairness and inclusion in the workplace. In other words, it was a government program that outlined, established and guided employers as to “how” both EEOC and CRA can be adhered to. It suggested that employers create an atmosphere that would ensure equal and equitable treatment to all, thus complying with both the CRA and EEOC.

As a workplace regulatory compliance enforcement agent (past) and now a private consultant, I can attest to the constant request from employers for governmental compliance assistance and private assistance, interpretation and reference to compliance with set mandates, which most federal regulatory agencies responded to, such as in the creation of the DEI.

It is common for employers to seek such assistance and guidance, and simply outline what procedures and practices need to be developed and implemented to ensure compliance. It also made the enforcement of such mandates much easier to comprehend and often challenged when found unacceptable.

With the revoking of DEI, compliance with the fully intact CRA and EEOC will be a little more challenging.

As an occupational regulatory compliance consultant, I truly recommend that employers continue their established DEI initiatives and continue their “non-discriminatory” policy and procedures, not to simply adhere to remaining EEOC mandates, but, as many have come to accept, it enhances employee morale, improves the company culture and creates better problem solving via diverse viewpoints.

Law or not, we all agree it is simply the American way.

God Bless America.

JOHN P. LESEGANICH

Canfield