And for the fifth time, incentives and quotas are not mutually exclusive. A company can create incentives that are implemented through quotas.

"Your salary is $100k. If you don't meet a quota of X% women I'm reducing your pay by $50k."

"Your salary is $50k. But I'm offering an incentive of $50k if you meet a quo... - excuse me - diversity goal of X% women."

You can keep repeating that this isn't a quota as long as you call it an "incentive", but anyone engaging in good faith sees it for what it is: it's setting a specific numeric quota on the basis of protected class, and penalizing workers who don't meet that quota.

In fact IBM was sued and paid a settlement of over $17 million for tying compensation to diversity metrics: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ibm-pays-17-million-resolve-a...

> The United States alleged that IBM took race, color, national origin, or sex into account when making employment decisions, including by using a diversity modifier that tied bonus compensation to achieving demographic targets.

> In fact IBM was sued and paid a settlement of over $17 million for tying compensation to diversity metrics:

That's one way of putting it.

Another way is IBM bribed Trump's personal lawyer 17 million in furtherance of Trump's hobby horse, bigotry, in exchange for a billion dollars[1].

> [May 21, 2026 5:25PM] The largest recipient is IBM, which is slated to receive $1 billion

[1] https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-presidential-portfolio-goes...

Bigotry does not mean an automatic win at court. I continue to be impressed at the mental gymnastics you're willing to jump through to rationalize the belief that tying compensation to racial and gender quotas is legal. It doesn't matter that companies are being sued and paying out settlements for their illegal DEI practices, it's all just a conspiracy!