New Push Toward Project Labor Agreements For Federal Construction Work
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.20.10
On April 13, 2010, the FAR Councils issued a final rule implementing an executive order that encourages federal agencies to use project labor agreements--defined as pre-hire collective bargaining agreements with one or more labor unions that establish the terms and conditions of employment for a specific project--for federal construction contracts, when the total cost to the government is $25 million or more. If an agency determines that such agreements would "[a]dvance the Federal Government's interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters," it must insert a solicitation and/or contract provision requiring prime contractors and subcontractors (if engaged in construction services) to negotiate a project labor agreement with one or more labor unions for the term of the construction contract.
Contacts
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
