In the wake of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, where the US Supreme Court struck down race-based admissions, corporate America has been rewriting its diversity playbooks to comply with evolving legal guardrails. Meanwhile, North Carolina has subtly emerged as a legislative epicenter in reshaping the national DEI landscape.

While lawmakers in Raleigh have advanced House Bill 171 and Senate Bills 227 and 558 to reform diversity protocols within state agencies, affiliated contractors, and public education, far less attention has been paid to controversial inclusion practices still entrenched in the private sector. Chief among them is the trend of awarding additional compensation to company leaders for meeting corporate-defined DEI objectives — often delivered through short- and long-term incentives that cascade across multiple organizational pay bands.

With subsidiaries spanning across the Tar Heel State, Cox Enterprises employs approximately 50,000 workers throughout North Carolina. The private conglomerate is my former employer, and historically, the company used bonus modifiers to reward leaders for promoting more women and minority employees into management roles. Following the admissions ruling, however, Cox was among several companies that shifted from explicit race- and gender-based language to broader terminology centered on employee resource groups. Yet the bonus potential remains — whether tied to fixed demographics or broader campaigns to fast-track career advancement for select employee groups.

My experience of being discharged for a vague code of conduct violation related to helping senior team members perform online requirements, despite a spotless 13-year record, made me wonder: Did my race or gender play a role in my dismissal? Based on current corporate practices, it’s difficult for this possibility not to enter one’s mind.

A 2024 study by Willis Towers Watson (WTW) found that 57% of US businesses still link executive compensation to inclusion goals. Among large corporations, the figure is even higher: ESGAUGE, a corporate governance data firm, reported that 66% of S&P 500 companies align leadership pay with DEI metrics. These incentives are far from symbolic. In 2024, for instance, Costco’s CEO earned an additional $93,000 for meeting social and environmental benchmarks, with other executives receiving bonuses approaching $25,000.

Such practices are now firmly on the legal system’s radar. In Dill v. IBM, a court recently denied IBM’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a white male employee who claims he was terminated to satisfy race and gender quotas. Notably, IBM had a DEI-linked bonus system in place — and the case underscores how calibrating executive compensation to demographic hiring objectives at the corporate level can lead to discriminatory actions at the local level. A legal precedent could be forthcoming as the litigation unfolds in Michigan’s Western District.

Labor attorney Eric Meyer cautions that “aligning executive incentives with DEI progress isn’t unlawful. But if those incentives result in pressure to make decisions based on race or gender, legal exposure increases — especially when coupled with adverse employment actions.”

Workplace policy experts note that corporate diversity incentive programs often falter by creating pressure to deliver identity-based outcomes without clear guidance on how to balance them with merit-based decisions. The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance warns that tying executive compensation to DEI objectives increases the risk that such goals will be perceived as de facto quotas — and may “impel employment decision-making based on diversity metrics instead of individual qualifications and job performance.”

While many past efforts have opened doors for underrepresented talent, the line between fairness and bias begins to blur when demographic hiring expectations directly enhance the earning potential of decision-makers. In workplaces where optics outweigh equity, misapplication becomes more likely — and manipulation, more tempting.

Fortunately, more organizations are moving beyond DEI as standalone frameworks. Holistic approaches are gaining traction — models that take time, require stewardship, and treat belonging as a core value rather than a quota to fill or a metric to manipulate. In these environments, diversity emerges organically, guided by authentic leadership — not manufactured by artificial incentives.

A workplace culture of genuine integrity demands inclusion that’s earned, not engineered — and not at the expense of equal treatment. Ultimately, accountability rests with all stakeholders: from boardroom executives to frontline employees in the field. A just workplace isn’t built on imbalanced standards. It’s built on principled ones — anchored in equality, rooted in merit, and free from financial distortion or conflicts of interest.

In North Carolina, the July 6 deadline for a gubernatorial veto on DEI legislation is fast approaching. Yet with the state Senate holding a veto-proof majority, many Tar Heel government and education workers are poised to experience a lasting shift toward a merit-based workplace culture. Still, without stronger oversight of the private sector, unfair hiring practices, questionable incentive structures, and reverse discrimination will likely persist — unless addressed through corporate reform, legislative intervention, or legal redress.