Subcommittee advances bill banning DEI-based hiring decisions in public employers; witnesses debate meaning and effects

Representative Mayberry’s House Bill 622, as amended, passed the Cities & Counties subcommittee on March 19, 2025, by a 5-2 vote. The bill would bar state, county, municipal and local governments, local education agencies and public higher-education institutions from making hiring decisions “based on diversity, equity and inclusion” goals; it would require hiring decisions to be made on merit — qualifications, experience and skills.

Why it matters: The measure touches hiring rules at public employers and drew testimony from workers and advocates who argued that programs described as DEI are meant to correct long-standing disparities, while the sponsor and supporters said the bill simply requires merit-based decisions and does not remove federal protections against discrimination.

Sponsor statement and scope: Representative Mayberry told the committee the bill is designed to ensure hiring is based on merit and does not eliminate statutory protections against discrimination. He said the bill applies to state and local public employers and public higher-education institutions.

Public testimony and debate: The committee heard from at least one witness, Megan Gohane, who described workplace experiences where customers or colleagues assumed that women or other groups could not perform certain roles; she said that programs focused on diversity, equity and inclusion broaden candidate pools and help correct implicit bias. Committee members and other representatives debated whether DEI programs are political and whether the bill would worsen hiring shortages in certain sectors such as education.

Legal context: Committee discussion referenced Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and existing anti-discrimination law; the sponsor and legal counsel said the bill would not remove those protections. Representative Mayberry said the bill would not affect civil-rights protections and that complaints under federal law would still be permitted.

Outcome: The subcommittee approved the amended bill by a 5-2 vote and moved it to the next available calendar. Committee debate and public testimony indicate the issue remains contested and will likely draw attention in subsequent committee consideration and public comment.

Provenance: The committee transcript records the sponsor’s explanation, witness testimony and the recorded committee vote; all quotations and attributions here come from those recorded remarks.