Mass. attorney general’s civil‑rights office says DEI legal protections remain, lists litigation wins

Elizabeth Matos, chief of the Civil Rights Division at the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, told the joint committee the office has issued guidance for businesses, non‑profits and educational institutions to clarify that diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs remain legal under state and federal civil‑rights laws.

Matos said the Attorney General’s Office has filed and supported litigation to force the federal government to follow existing law and to halt threatened funding cuts. “These efforts are very much still, alive and, legal and valid, and we need to continue that,” she told the committee.

Why it matters: The AG’s guidance aims to reduce confusion among institutions that receive federal grants and contracts, the office said. Matos emphasized that federal executive orders do not override state and federal civil‑rights statutes such as Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Recent litigation and guidance: Matos listed recent and ongoing cases the office is monitoring or supporting. The First Circuit recently denied the federal government’s request to stay a preliminary injunction that had protected museums, libraries and the Minority Business Development Agency from certain federal actions. A separate district‑court matter in Massachusetts saw a subpoena to Boston Children’s Hospital seeking records related to gender‑affirming care struck down. The office also cited efforts that restored about $108,000,000 in federal K‑12 entitlement grants that had been withheld earlier in the year.

AG’s best‑practice guidance: The office has published two guidance documents: a multistate business/nonprofit guidance on the continued viability of DEI programs and a second guidance addressing confusion from the Department of Education’s February Dear Colleague letter and the implications of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision for K–12 and higher education. The AG’s office also outlined recommended best practices for employers — broad recruitment efforts, panel interviews, equal access to training and clear protocols for reporting discrimination — and for schools, including evidence‑based bullying prevention.

Questions and follow‑up: Committee members asked where complaints were increasing; Matos said civil‑rights complaints had risen since the change in federal administration and described case types the division handles, including housing discrimination, disability accommodations, and immigration‑linked workplace threats. The office encouraged people to file complaints when they encounter suspected civil‑rights violations so state enforcement can respond.

Ending note: Matos told the committee the AG’s office will continue to litigate and publish guidance, and she urged institutions to consult the office’s materials rather than presuming federal executive actions eliminate established civil‑rights protections.