Government Sanctioned for Failure to Preserve Documents
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.26.12
In United States ex rel. Baker v. Community Health Sys., Inc, No. 05-279-WJ-ACT (D.N.M. Oct. 3, 2012), the U.S. District Court in New Mexico upheld sanctions against the government for failing to preserve electronically stored information in a False Claims Act case, ordering the government to produce certain privileged materials. This case provides valuable reminders that the government's duty to preserve evidence may arise long before it intervenes and that merely issuing a litigation hold is not in and of itself sufficient to satisfy the duty to preserve, but parties also must take diligent steps to implement and monitor compliance with preservation obligations.
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].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
