Administrative Leave OK If Feds Gave It Too
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.19.05
On October 11 DoD issued guidance (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/2005-1405-DPAP.pdf) stating that the allowability of costs of paid administrative leave granted to contractor employees as a result of closures caused by Hurricane Katrina will be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration whether other businesses in the same geographical area were closed because of the hurricane and whether Federal employees in the same area received paid administrative leave. Although the guidance strongly encourages the negotiation of advance agreements regarding the allowability of other “unusual” costs incurred by contractors for the support of displaced employees, contracting officers are directed not to approve payments for Katrina-related costs pending the outcome of claims for such costs from insurance carriers.
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.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
DOJ Promises NPAs to Certain Individuals Through New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Pilot Program
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.23.24
