Executive Order Prohibiting Bias Training? Ignore That. DoD Issues Class Deviation to Comply with Nationwide Ban on EO 13950 Provisions.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.08.21
On January 6, 2021, the DoD issued a class deviation, effective immediately, to implement the nationwide court order enjoining Sections 4 and 5 of Executive Order (EO) 13950, Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, as well as guidance provided by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). EO 13950 prohibits federal agencies, contractors, and grant recipients from using workplace diversity and inclusion trainings to “promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating,” with Section 4 applying specifically to government contractors.
Under the class deviation, contracting officers are directed to “take all steps necessary to ensure the enjoined Section 4 of EO 13950 and its associated clause 252.222-7999, Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping (DEVIATION 2021-O0001) (NOV 2020), are not implemented or enforced and are inoperable until further notice.” Among other steps, contracting officers are instructed to (i) ensure that any new contracts do not contain the enjoined clause; (ii) modify existing contracts that include the enjoined clause to remove it and replace with the revised clause; (iii) not enforce any clauses contained in government contracts added pursuant to EO 13950; and (iv) not take any adverse action towards contractors or subcontractors on the basis of purported noncompliance with EO 13950, agency action implementing EO 13950, or any contract term inserted pursuant to EO 13950. To the extent contractors or subcontractors are presented with the enjoined clause, the injunction and class deviation provides a basis for refusing to incorporate the clause into any contract.
Contacts
Partner
She/Her/Hers
Partner
She/Her/Hers
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
