Transform Dated I&D with This Merit-Based Inclusion Framework

As the legal landscape around inclusion and diversity (I&D) continues to evolve — shaped by recent Supreme Court rulings and presidential executive orders — HR professionals face a critical challenge: how to ensure their I&D strategies remain legally sound while driving real impact.  

Enter SHRM’s Belonging Enhanced by Access through Merit (BEAM) Framework, a practical set of principles and questions designed to help HR assess their workplaces, through the lens of merit and access, and align with current regulations.  

Why BEAM Matters Now

Although the BEAM Framework was released before the Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services court decision — which significantly reshaped the way protected status can be considered in employment decisions — it is well equipped to help organizations shift the mindset around these issues. BEAM emphasizes merit, access, and continuous improvement, helping companies foster inclusion in a way that aligns with legal expectations and business goals.

Toolkit: Implementing SHRM’s BEAM Framework

At SHRM25 in San Diego, SHRM Chief Data and Analytics Officer Alex Alonso, Ph.D., SHRM-SCP, and Camille Olson, partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, shared how BEAM can be operationalized in real-world HR scenarios.

Applying BEAM: Key Scenarios for Today’s HR Leaders

Merit as the Primary Lens

An employer deciding to promote a female employee, for example, should not do it based on a stated goal to promote more women — because that would be considering something other than qualifications. However, it is very possible that someone’s identity is tied to the accomplishments that make them qualified for a promotion.  

“You can’t just say it’s because she’s a woman. But if something about the fact that I am a woman motivated me to do something and allowed me to use my own individual experiences, initiatives, [and] contributions to make a difference, that is still very relevant,” Olson said. “And that’s merit. It may be merit that had its roots in there being an obstacle or a hardship that a person overcame, and we don’t just ignore those going forward, but think about them through the lens of ‘How did that obstacle or hardship affect an individual?’ and ‘Did they demonstrate some sort of merit?’ ”

The takeaway: Consider how an individual’s experiences, achievements, and resilience — even when shaped by identity — demonstrate qualifications. Focus on what the person has done, not what group they belong to.

Access over Identity

The biggest question HR professionals have in the wake of the recent executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is: What does this mean for I&D programs? According to Olson, the law is clear.  

“Title VII permits employers to adopt mechanisms to support diversity by advancing equal opportunity for all employees — without the use of illegal preferences with respect to employees based on their protected status,” she said.  

It’s how those mechanisms are structured that matters: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management has released guidance on what constitutes legal I&D, saying that it can include employee resource groups (ERGs) and leadership programs. But they “can’t give a preference to someone because of a protected status such as race or gender, and they can’t exclude or segregate someone for that reason, as well,” Olson said. “Title VII does not protect a decision by a company to treat a group defined by a protected status differently from anyone else.”

Policy Template: Skills Development and Access Policy

Continuous Calibration

One common misconception Alonso has heard since the executive orders is that companies no longer need to record workforce data. “The EEOC can still come and investigate whatever they want,” he said. “And that means you have to have the data.”  

With changing regulations, organizations must revisit and document their I&D strategies. That includes clearly defining program motivations, goals, terms, and evaluation metrics.

“You do not want a third party, a judge, a plaintiff’s lawyer, or an administration employee to decide them for you,” Olson said. “Documentation is key. We do it with performance management decisions. You’ve got to do it with respect to your DEI-related programs.”  

Similarly, if you are measuring anything related to those programs, ensure the metrics are consistent with those definitions.  

Everything should be reviewed, and changes may be necessary to come into compliance.

“You’ve really got to look at the details of your programs,” Olson said. Renaming a program without adjusting its structure or intent is unlikely to hold up under scrutiny. “People can see through that.”

Operationalizing Inclusion

Workplaces that are ensuring inclusion by prioritizing a skills-first approach have tapped into a key piece of the legal I&D puzzle, Alonso said. And it’s one that has staying power no matter who is in office.

Alonso pointed to executive orders from both the Trump and Biden administrations aimed at tackling the nation’s skills gap.  

“There is a shared belief between the prior administration and this administration that skills diminishment is happening among the American workforce,” he said. Whether they believe it’s tied to I&D or to artificial intelligence, “you’re actually seeing the need for greater skill development and skills-based meritocracy.”

Framing inclusion through skills access — rather than identity — creates a legally sound, sustainable foundation for workforce development.

“It is an evolutionary moment,” Alonso said. “This is about how we reframe and rethink the workplace and the workforce.”

 Checklist: Essential Components of an Unbiased, Skills-Based Interview