DOJ ends a key racial discrimination case, signaling an end to the Civil Rights Division as it existed

The lawsuit alleged a brazen pattern of racial discrimination against a Black woman, but AAG Harmeet Dhillon ended the case. Also: A look at the bigger picture at DOJ.

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has ended a lawsuit it brought months earlier alleging a brazen pattern of racial discrimination against a Black woman, an alarming development that suggests the end of the division as it previously existed.

Less than two weeks into Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s tenure as the head of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, the division submitted a notice Tuesday that it is ending its lawsuit against the Mississippi state Senate over the legislature’s alleged discrimination against a Black lawyer who had worked in the Senate’s Legislative Services Office.

The lawsuit, filed in November 2024, was brought by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint alleged a damning, years-long pattern of discrimination against Kristie Metcalfe, the first and only Black attorney to work in the office in decades.

As alleged in the complaint, the office “consistently paid Metcalfe $40,000 to $60,000 less than its lowest-salaried white attorney (at times, paying her less than half of what it paid any of her other white colleagues) even though she and the white attorneys were doing the same jobs with the same levels of responsibility.”

The complaint went on to detail the facts of Metcalfe’s time with the office, including the hire of a new attorney — who had no legislative experience and the same number of years of legal experience as Metcalfe but was white.

Metcalfe complained about the pay disparity at that time and had a request for pay equalization denied. “Until her resignation, Metcalfe continued to be paid about half of what her white LSO attorney counterparts were paid,” the complaint concluded.

Metcalfe then filed a discrimination charge (allegation) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in May 2019. After investigating, finding reasonable cause to believe Metcalfe had been discriminated against, and attempting to resolve the matter itself unsuccessfully, the EEOC referred the matter to DOJ, which sued in November 2024.

Soon after President Donald Trump took office, the Mississippi state Senate had sought to put the proceedings on hold indefinitely based on the new administration and a DOJ memo regarding a “litigation freeze.” DOJ responded in mid-February, stating that it would agree to a 45-day stay, but also pushing back at the Mississippi state Senate’s filing, noting, “The Department, not Defendant, is the appropriate party to determine whether the Department’s internal processes warrant requesting a stay.“ After a hearing, a 90-day stay of proceedings was ordered.

On Tuesday, that 90-day stay was cut short with DOJ’s dismissal notice and the case was closed.

The attorneys on the dismissal notice were Dhillon, as well as Karen Woodard, chief; Valerie Meyer, deputy chief; and Louis Whitsett, senior trial attorney.

---

The bigger picture, in the Civil Rights Division and across DOJ

Dhillon was confirmed as the assistant attorney general in charge of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division on April 3. No Democrats voted her confirmation, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the only Republican to vote against Dhillon’s confirmation.

With her confirmation, many changes were expected given Trump and Bondi’s priorities and Dhillon’s record. Tuesday’s dismissal — of about as clear-cut of a case as I can imagine — suggests that it’s not only priorities that will change, but a wholesale revision of the office.

DOJ will not be working to protect civil rights as we know them.

To that end, Law Dork has also learned that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Timothy Mygatt, one of the last career DAAGs in the front office of the Civil Rights Division, has resigned effective Wednesday.¹ Like other career officials who have left, Mygatt worked in the division during the first Trump administration but is not staying this time.

Dhillon is likely hoping to speed this transformation along with a second “deferred resignation program” that she announced internally on Monday — similar to the initial centralized “Fork in the Road” program.

“The Civil Rights Division has been authorized to offer a second Deferred Resignation Program (DRP II),” Dhillon stated in a message to all Civil Rights Division employees that was viewed by Law Dork. “DRP II is open for eligible Department employees to apply from April 14, 2025, through April 28, 2025.” Criminal Section employees are not eligible for the offer, per the message, along with a handful of others.

The Civil Rights Division is not alone in doing this. Law Dork has learned that many, if not all, divisions of the Justice Department — including all U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country — received notice of a second deferred resignation program, as well as Voluntary Early Retirement Authority, between Monday and Tuesday.

From documents viewed by Law Dork, it appears that all run from April 14 through April 28, with notices of acceptance made by May 12.

Trump has made clear time and time again his lawless aims. Bondi has — as recently as Monday — appeared an eager participant in those aims. An effort to rid the Justice Department of even more career employees is concerning to that end, although certainly conflicting in this moment.

---

Some final thoughts

If you’ll bear with me for a minute, let me explain.

One of the few internal structures in the executive branch that has provided any minimal protection for the rule of law is the career DOJ attorneys. They know the law, they know the government, and they know the courts.

I have watched and listened to them as they clearly struggle to operate in this environment — attempting to follow the law, while seeking to represent their clients.

Yes, at some point — and it may very well be behind us — any lawyer representing this administration could, and should, be seen as complicit in its actions. But, it also seems true to me — and I’ve seen it work — that when those lawyers can push back against intransigent clients — as in, convince the client agency or even the White House to take the right, lawful action — that is good, especially right now.

Additionally, sometimes those lawyers’ actions provide an important signal to the public. When career lawyers leave cases — or, as in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, are taken off cases — that provides the rest of us with notice that we should be paying very close attention to the arguments being made by the Justice Department.

The lawyer who was taken off Abrego Garcia’s case, Erez Reuveni, was placed on leave following the first hearing in the case before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, apparently for telling the truth before a court — or, as Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer, put it, “for failing to ‘follow a directive from your superiors.’“

Reuveni has since been fired, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday morning.

Take note.

1. This was updated to correct Mygatt’s title.