1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Applicability of Privilege to Internal Investigations Upheld, Again

Applicability of Privilege to Internal Investigations Upheld, Again

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.12.15

In a decision preserving the strength of the attorney-client privilege, the D.C. Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton once again vacated an order from the district court requiring KBR to produce attorney-client privileged documents created during an internal investigation. Specifically,  the D.C. Circuit granted mandamus based on the "clear and indisputable error" in the findings that (1) KBR had waived  the privilege under Rule 612 by allowing a non-lawyer, Rule 30(b)(6) witness to review the investigation  report during deposition preparation; and (2) KBR had put the investigation report into issue by mentioning the company's "investigative mechanism" in a motion for summary judgment.


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].”...

View All Insights