1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Final Rule on Supply Chain Risk Fails to Provide Additional Guidance, Protection, or Relief from Uncertain Application

Final Rule on Supply Chain Risk Fails to Provide Additional Guidance, Protection, or Relief from Uncertain Application

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.02.15

On October 30, DoD published a final rule (a) requiring evaluation of supply chain risk when acquiring information technology that is either a covered National Security System ("NSS"), part of a covered NSS, or in support of a covered NSS; and (b) authorizing DoD to exclude primes or subs from a particular procurement if they fail to mitigate identified supply chain risks adequately. DoD made relatively modest changes to the 2013 interim rule (e.g., removing the flow-down requirement applicable to subs at any tier) but largely rejected industry input (e.g., declining to identify specific standards or controls to mitigate supply chain risk and declining to create a mechanism for challenging exclusion from a particular source selection).


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. ...