Morrison Foerster agrees to pay damages and donate to trans advocacy groups following a discrimination claim, amid broader US regulatory crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in law firms.
Morrison Foerster (MoFo), a prominent US law firm with a London office, has agreed to pay £25,000 in damages and legal costs following a discrimination claim brought by the Good Law Project (GLP) on behalf of a trans man. The claim arose after MoFo initially agreed to represent the man in a matter asserting his transgender rights but subsequently declined, citing the “potentially controversial nature of issues raised by the litigation.” Although MoFo settled the claim without admitting liability, the agreement included a financial award of £5,000 to the trans man, with the remainder allocated to the GLP. The GLP stated that it will donate £5,000 each to several trans advocacy groups, including Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, Equality for Trans Families, Trans Legal Clinic, and the Gender Identity Research & Education Society. Legal representation for the claimant was provided by the London firm Brett Wilson.
The case has brought to light concerns about the influence of broader political dynamics on the actions of law firms, particularly the anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda attributed to the administration of former US President Donald Trump. GLP’s letter before action expressed fears that pressure linked to this agenda may have unlawfully influenced solicitors in the UK to act in a discriminatory way that promotes transphobia. In correspondence, MoFo had admitted that the potentially controversial nature of the issues was among the reasons for its decision not to proceed, though it denied that the decision was “tainted by discrimination” or politically motivated. When pressed for clarification, MoFo’s solicitors declined to provide further explanation.
This settlement unfolds against a backdrop of increased scrutiny of DEI policies by US regulatory authorities. In March, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requested extensive information from 20 major law firms, including MoFo, regarding their DEI programs. The EEOC, under Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, has warned that certain DEI initiatives might be unlawful if they result in disparate treatment based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics, signaling a shift in enforcement priorities that critics argue could undermine diversity efforts. The requested information from these firms encompassed hiring, compensation practices, and demographic data of employees participating in diversity initiatives. This crackdown has generated significant controversy, with three law students recently filing a lawsuit against the EEOC. They argue that the agency’s actions exceed its legal authority and threaten the confidentiality of sensitive applicant data.
Moreover, the heightened pressure on law firms to disclose their DEI practices is not limited to federal authorities. Attorneys general from 12 Republican-led states, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, have also demanded information from the same group of law firms, focusing on areas such as hiring, internships, scholarships, and compensation. This coordinated scrutiny aims to challenge what these officials perceive as potential violations of federal anti-discrimination laws under the guise of diversity initiatives.
In summary, MoFo’s settlement in the discrimination case not only reflects the direct consequences for the firm in this particular instance but also highlights the larger context of a concerted political and regulatory pushback against DEI policies in the US legal sector. For UK law firms affiliated with US headquarters, the case underscores the complex tensions between upholding diversity commitments and navigating external pressures rooted in shifting US political landscapes.
📌 Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative was first published on 21 March 2025 by Legal Futures ([legalfutures.co.uk](https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/legal-threat-to-us-firm-in-london-over-u-turn-on-helping-trans-man?utm_source=openai)). The most recent publication date is 29 September 2025, indicating a freshness of approximately 6 months. The report has been republished across various platforms, including Legal Futures and Scene Magazine, suggesting a moderate level of freshness. The narrative is based on a press release from the Good Law Project, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No significant discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found.
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
Direct quotes from the Good Law Project and Morrison Foerster were found in the original report. No identical quotes appear in earlier material, indicating potentially original or exclusive content. The wording of the quotes matches the original report, with no variations noted.
Source reliability
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative originates from Legal Futures, a reputable UK legal news outlet. However, it has been republished across various platforms, including Scene Magazine, which may affect the overall reliability. The Good Law Project is a well-known organisation, and Morrison Foerster is a reputable law firm. No unverifiable entities were mentioned.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with known issues regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion in the legal sector. The narrative is covered by other reputable outlets, including Reuters, indicating corroboration. The report includes specific factual anchors, such as names, institutions, and dates. The language and tone are consistent with UK legal reporting.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is fresh, with no significant discrepancies or signs of disinformation. It is based on a press release from the Good Law Project, which typically warrants a high freshness score. The quotes are original, and the sources are reliable. The claims are plausible and corroborated by other reputable outlets. The language and tone are consistent with UK legal reporting. No major risks were identified.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
