GEOFF BENNETT: For more than 60 years, the federal government has relied on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC,to enforce laws against workplace discrimination.

But the Justice Department is now challenging a legal framework that has underpinned that work for decades, known as disparate impact liability.

That's the idea that policies can be discriminatory if they disproportionately harm certain groups, even if they appear neutral on their face.

The Trump administration says it wants to return civil rights enforcement to a colorblind, merit-based approach.

Critics argue the shift could weaken longstanding protections against discrimination.

To help us understand the policy shift and its implications, we're joined now by Jenny Yang, former chair of the EEOC under former President Obama and the beginning of the Trump administration.

She's now a partner at Outten & Golden.

Thank you for being here.

JENNY YANG, Former Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Thank you for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: So let's start by talking about disparate impact.

Give us a real-world example of the kinds of discrimination it's designed to uncover.

What kinds of seemingly neutral policies or practices are we talking about?

JENNY YANG: Well, the law prohibits practices that are unfair because they're screening out people for reasons that aren't job-related.

This could be A.I.-based screening that ranks and sorts resumes.

It could be pay, for example.

So imagine two people who start on the same day with the same qualifications and doing the same exact job duties, but one person is paid thousands of dollars less because her prior employer paid her less.

That kind of disparate impact from relying on a prior salary is what the law is designed to prevent.

Where an employer does an equal pay audit, disparate impact protections encourage that employer to evaluate whether that practice is fair and job-related.

If it's not, it asks the employer to change it.

So it's not unfairly paying certain workers compared to others.

Another example is our client, Kenny Miller (ph).

He challenged a unfair criminal history screen.

EEOC had originally brought this case after years of investigation.

He was already working and was fired because of an older conviction, despite performing the job well.

And the EEOC had found in its earlier case that this kind of criminal background history screen was not job-related.

Employers, of course, can check for criminal history screens where it's related to the job.

But where it doesn't overbroad screen, it's missing qualified talent.

Employers are missing opportunities to support their families.

And, as America, we are harming our economy.

GEOFF BENNETT: If these policies aren't explicitly discriminatory, why should an employer be responsible for the unequal outcomes these policies might produce?

JENNY YANG: Because employers are in the best position to actually understand how these practices are operating.

Employers can evaluate whether a particular hiring criteria like a four-year college degree requirement is actually necessary for the job.

There are many ways people can learn the skills necessary to perform the job.

And if an employer decides everyone must have a four-year degree, when, in fact, many people could successfully perform the job without one, that can operate as a discriminatory barrier that leads to an unjustified, disparate impact.

And employers are in the best position to understand that and to prevent discrimination by taking action to change that practice.

GEOFF BENNETT: I want to play for you a video that the current chair of the EEOC posted late last year.

Take a look.

ANDREA LUCAS, Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: I'm Andrea Lucas, chair of the U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Are you a white male who's experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex?

You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws.

Contact the EEOC as soon as possible.

Time limits are typically strict for filing a claim.

GEOFF BENNETT: So you have held that position.

How unusual is it for a chair to publicly solicit discrimination claims from one specific demographic group like that?

JENNY YANG: Yes, this is highly unusual.

Many people were not sure if it was real when they first saw it, because our laws protect everyone.

And EEOC was created by Congress out of the March on Washington.

And it was a call for fairness in jobs and freedom, and that was meant for everyone.

It wasn't meant for only certain individuals of a particular race or gender.

And that is deeply problematic at a time, particularly where the agency is very strapped for resources.

And a focus on only one community actually harms many others.

GEOFF BENNETT: There are white Americans who believe the Biden era DEI policies were unfair to them, that race was considered in ways that disadvantaged them.

Why is it wrong, in your view, for the administration, the current administration, to respond to those concerns and insist that civil rights laws protect white folks too?

JENNY YANG: Well, civil rights laws have always protected white individuals and men.

And we brought those cases when I was at the EEOC as well.

There were retailers that thought let's prevent harassment by not promoting men, right?

That is discrimination.

So our agencies across the federal government have always applied the law to protect all Americans.

So that's why this kind of action is particularly harmful.

Our laws have always asked for protections for all Americans.

GEOFF BENNETT: Big picture here, you have this disparate impact liability, this framework.

It remains part of federal law.

Congress codified it.

The Supreme Court upheld it.

The administration now is urging and directing agencies to deprioritize it.

How significant is it that a president, any president, can effectively narrow civil rights protections not by changing the law with Congress, but by deciding which laws the federal government will enforce?

JENNY YANG: Well, I want to be clear, the law has not changed.

This administration is attempting to change the law and dramatically narrow its protections.

It's trying to argue that we should only care about intentional discrimination, but not harms from discrimination that may be built into systems.

And that is incredibly important for the federal government to continue, because individuals can't always find lawyers to represent them.

So the federal government has the kind of scope and scale of impact that is not possible for individuals to have on their own.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jenny Yang, former chair of the EEOC, thank you for being with us.

JENNY YANG: Thank you for having me.