Black Perspective | Op-Ed by David Laguerre
At 65, I think about opportunity in terms of the people who will come after me. I want the younger people in my family to have a fair chance to build a life, support the people they love and take pride in their work. Their qualifications should matter. Their race should never be a reason to shut a door. Fair hiring should be the standard that ensures everyone has an equal opportunity.
That is why a change in federal contracting rules deserves more attention than its dry title might suggest. On October 26, a Labor Department rule took effect removing the regulations that carried out Executive Order 11246, a longtime source of equal-employment requirements for covered federal contractors.
Fair hiring practices are essential to create a just and equitable workforce that benefits all.
I believe employers who receive public money should be able to explain how they recruit, hire and promote people fairly. A change in Washington should make that conversation more serious, not make it disappear.
Be clear about what changed
President Donald Trump revoked Executive Order 11246 in January 2025. The new rule, published August 21, 2026, removes its implementing regulations. The earlier system combined nondiscrimination requirements with affirmative-action duties for covered contractors and subcontractors. The Federal Register rule explains that history and the October 26 effective date.
The distinction between those dates matters. This was not a brand-new presidential order on Monday. The Labor Department had already directed staff to stop investigative and enforcement work under the revoked order in January 2025. This week’s regulatory step follows that earlier decision. The department’s January 24, 2025 announcement records that instruction.
We should describe the change accurately even when we disagree with it. Accuracy gives people a stronger basis for deciding what to demand from their government and their employers.
Workers still have rights
The removal of this contractor-specific framework does not make race discrimination legal. Title VII remains a separate source of protection. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says the law bars race or color discrimination in hiring, firing, pay, promotion, training and other parts of employment. Its race-discrimination page lists coverage for employers with 15 or more employees. The EEOC’s current explanation also describes prohibited racial harassment.
Separate federal contractor protections concerning disability and protected-veteran status have their own legal foundations. The Government Accountability Office’s review notes that the Labor Department’s complaint information collection still covers Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act. GAO’s September 16 report also independently confirms the rule’s effective date.
I do not want a worker to read a frightening headline and assume there is nowhere to turn. Nor do I want an employer to read it as permission to stop taking discrimination seriously. Both mistakes would make an already difficult discussion worse.
The question behind the paperwork
The administration says the old framework imposed unnecessary burdens and had legal weaknesses. Those are its stated reasons, described in the final rule, rather than findings I am asking readers to accept without question. A fair account should include that explanation.
GAO reports that the Labor Department estimated about $996 million in annual savings from reduced paperwork and compliance burdens. That is an agency estimate, not a measured result from this week’s change. It tells us what the administration expects to save. It does not tell us whether applicants will have a fairer chance.
That second question is the one I want kept in view. A hiring system can look orderly on paper and still deserve scrutiny. Who learns that a job is open? Are the qualifications connected to the work? Do applicants get judged by consistent standards? Can employees raise concerns without being treated as troublemakers?
Those are practical questions. An employer should welcome them if it is confident that its decisions are fair. I would rather hear clear answers than another argument in which a slogan takes the place of an explanation.
What I want from Mohawk Valley employers
I am not alleging that a particular local company has violated the law or changed its practices. That would require reporting and evidence. My point is about the standard our community should expect, especially when public contracts help support a business.
Here is what I would ask an employer to explain:
- Where are openings advertised, and can people outside existing professional networks find them?
- What skills does each job actually require, and how are those skills evaluated?
- Are promotion and training opportunities described clearly to the people already working there?
- Who receives discrimination complaints, and how does the company prevent retaliation?
- What lawful checks help the company recognize unfair treatment and correct it?
I am asking for an accountable process, not a promise that every applicant will get the result they want. People can compete for limited jobs and still deserve an honest explanation of the rules. Rejection should not leave someone wondering whether the stated qualifications were ever the real test.
Employers should get sound advice about their current legal duties. They should also be willing to speak plainly to the communities where they hire. Workers and small-business owners should not need a law degree to understand a company’s basic commitment to fairness.
A practical place to begin
For New Yorkers who believe they experienced discrimination, the state Division of Human Rights accepts reports online and at 844-697-3471. Reporting is free, and an attorney is not required to submit a report or file a complaint. The agency asks for dates, a clear description, the people or organizations involved and the connection to a protected characteristic. Its reporting page explains the process.
The division also makes an important distinction: an initial report is not yet a formal complaint. Staff first review whether the matter is covered. For acts occurring on or after February 15, 2024, its page gives a three-year reporting period from the most recent incident. Federal procedures have different deadlines, so a worker should check the relevant agency promptly rather than assume one timetable covers every option.
That information belongs alongside the policy debate. People need a way to act on a concern, not just another reason to feel discouraged.
The standard I want to leave behind
As a Black man who cares deeply about his family and civil rights, I want progress to be visible in ordinary decisions. I want a young person to prepare for an interview knowing the work will count. I want an experienced worker to pursue advancement without being quietly written off. I want employers to take those expectations seriously.
Washington has changed one set of rules. Our responsibility to ask hard, fair questions continues. Public money should come with public accountability, and equal opportunity should be something an employer can explain through its actions.
That is the standard I want for my family. It is the standard I want for our community.
