Pfizer Urges Appeals Court To Uphold Dismissal Of Anti-DEI Lawsuit
Pfizer has urged a US Court of Appeals to uphold a decision to dismiss a lawsuit from an anti-affirmative action group that challenged its diversity fellowship program.
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Do No Harm’s lawsuit because the group failed to name at least one individual harmed by Pfizer’s program.
The lawsuit against Pfizer
The case involves Pfizer’s fellowship program aimed at recruiting and training Black, Latine, and Native American leaders. Do No Harm’s lawsuit claims the program violated federal civil rights laws.
In March, a three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit, stating that Do No Harm failed to name any individuals harmed by the program.
This dismissal set a precedent within the Second Circuit, requiring organizations to disclose the names of affected members to demonstrate a legitimate interest in the case.
Pfizer’s legal team, including attorneys from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, and DLA Piper, argues that naming harmed individuals is necessary to prove actual injury and sincerity of interest.
This requirement ensures that claims are genuine and not based on abstract or hypothetical grievances.
Court’s Decision and Reactions
While agreeing with the decision, Judge Richard Wesley warned that this requirement could restrict access to the courts for various organizations, according to Reuters.
Do No Harm and its supporters argue that this rule conflicts with previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions and rulings from other appellate courts, allowing organizations to shield member identities.
For example, in the Edward Blum-led lawsuit challenging Fearless Fund’s grant program for Black women entrepreneurs, the Eleventh Circuit ruled anonymous declarations were sufficient to establish standing.
Associational standing allows organizations to advocate for the shared interests of their members.
Pfizer’s Position and Future Implications
Pfizer maintains that its fellowship program is legally sound and emphasizes its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The company argues that Do No Harm’s failure to name injured members stems from its flawed litigation strategy.
Its legal team adds that naming harmed individuals is essential to prove actual injury and sincerity of interest.
Moreover, Tthe pharmaceutical giant insists that no further review is needed as the fellowship is now open to candidates of all backgrounds and that the program will conclude in 2025.
Despite these arguments, Do No Harm is expected to continue its legal battle, potentially taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split on naming names to establish associational standing.
Feature Image Credit: Andrew Kelly/Reuters
