Prohibition on Contracting with Corporations with Felony Conviction or Delinquent Taxes
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.04.15
On December 4, 2015, the FAR Council issued an interim rule – with an effective date of February 26, 2016 – that would require a corporation responding to any federal solicitation to represent whether it (1) has a felony conviction for a violation under any federal law within the preceding 24 months or (2) has any unpaid federal tax liability that has been assessed and is not being appealed or paid in a timely manner. Consistent with the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Acts, any affirmative response made by a corporation to either representation would effectively create an automatic exclusion that precludes award of federal contracts, unless the agency's suspension and debarment official has reviewed the matter and determined that further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the government.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
