1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Mining Law Monitor - Volume 22, Issue 1 - (Spring 2005)

Mining Law Monitor - Volume 22, Issue 1 - (Spring 2005)

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.07.05

  • "Twentymile: The Latest Word on Liability for Independent Contractor Violations Under the Mine Safety and Health Act," Co-Authors: Tim Biddle, Ed Green and Dan Wolff.
    This article also appeared in Stone, Sand & Gravel Review, (July/August 2005)
  • "Focus on Explosives: Failures and Fees," Co-Authors: Ed Green and Mike Gill.
  • "The Resurgence of The U.S. Mining Industry in 2005 And How Our Legal System Can Help It Flourish," Author: Tim McCrum.
  • "MSHA's Dilemma," Co-Authors: Tim Means and Linda Lavache.
  • "An Uncertain Outlook For General Permitting Under The Clean Water Act NPDES Program," Co-Authors: Rich Schwartz, Ellen Steen, and Kirsten Nathanson.

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].”...