Happy Holidays From The Far Council -- Proposed Restrictions On Allowable Airfare
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.21.07
In a proposed change to FAR 31.205-46(b) (72 Fed. Reg. 72325 (Dec. 20, 2007)), the FAR Council is seeking public comments on a proposal to change the standard for allowable airfare from "the lowest customary standard, coach, or equivalent airfare offered during normal business hours" to nothing "in excess of the lowest priced coach class, or equivalent, airfare available to the contractor during normal business hours." While it appears from the comments in the proposed regulation and what is known about the background of this proposal that the principal purpose of the proposal is to measure the unallowable cost attributable to premium airfares by disallowing the excess over the lowest available discounted airfare available, the proposal obviously has the potential for creating serious difficulties for all contractors and all travel where the lowest price "available to the contractor" is determined in an ephemeral internet market that changes literally from minute to minute and depends on a variety of factors including the fliers' willingness to accept advance purchase and minimum stay requirements, restrictions on changes and refundability, and choice of carrier.
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
