1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Decision Signals Increased SBA Scrutiny of Size Status

Decision Signals Increased SBA Scrutiny of Size Status

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.16.07

In Size Appeal of Ross Aviation, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4840, March 07, 2007, the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) reversed its earlier decision in Size Appeal of Spectrum Landscape Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4313 (1998), and expanded the scope of its review. Basing its reversal of position on the objective of promoting the integrity of the procurement process, OHA held that “[a]part from contract-specific issues (e.g., ostensible subcontractor and non-manufacturer rule), OHA will no longer dismiss automatically an unsuccessful offeror’s appeal as moot after contract award . . . simply because of a contracting officer’s representation that he/she intends not to disturb award of the contract (including their intent to award options).”

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].”...