segregated

In 2017, Executive Order 13798 revoked Executive Order 13673, also known as the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Order. This effectively rescinded guidance that implemented regulations prohibiting federal contractors from requiring employees or potential employees to enter into pre-dispute arbitration agreements for claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, or tort claims related to sexual assault or harassment. These agreements were argued by some to lead to the segregation of claims into arbitration proceedings rather than open court, potentially shielding employers from public scrutiny regarding workplace misconduct.

The rescission was promoted by business groups who argued that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Order was overly burdensome and duplicated existing regulations. Proponents of the rescission also asserted that the arbitration agreements, while potentially limiting avenues for redress, offered a faster and less costly alternative to litigation for resolving disputes. Furthermore, some argued that the original executive order exceeded the authority of the executive branch and created unnecessary hurdles for businesses seeking federal contracts. Historically, the use of mandatory arbitration clauses has been a contentious issue, with critics alleging that they disproportionately disadvantage employees and consumers.

Read more

A policy shift during the Trump administration involved the revocation of an Obama-era rule designed to combat housing discrimination. This prior rule, often referred to as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), mandated that communities receiving federal housing funds actively work to reduce segregation patterns and promote integrated living environments. The removal of this requirement shifted the focus away from proactively addressing historical segregation in housing.

The implications of this action are multifaceted. Proponents argued that the AFFH rule was overly burdensome and ineffective, imposing complex regulations on local communities. Conversely, critics maintained that dismantling the rule undermined efforts to dismantle discriminatory housing practices and perpetuated existing inequalities. Understanding the historical context of housing segregation in the United States is crucial to grasping the potential long-term effects of this policy change.

Read more