1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Not So Fast – GSA Implements New SAM Registration Requirements After Fraudulent Activity

Not So Fast – GSA Implements New SAM Registration Requirements After Fraudulent Activity

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.17.18

Following fraudulent activity in the System for Award Management (SAM), the General Services Administration (GSA) is implementing new requirements for registration in SAM.  Effective March 22, 2018, new entities to SAM are now required to submit a notarized letter identifying their authorized Entity Administrator before a new SAM registration is activated, and beginning April 27, 2018, entities with existing SAM registrations will also be required to submit this notarized letter to confirm the authorized Entity Administrator before current SAM registrations are updated or renewed.

To read more, visit our blog post on the topic.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24

Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard

On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm. ...