Proposal To Further Executive Branch Employees' Acceptance Of Gifts From Lobbyists
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.14.11
On September 13, 2011, the Office of Government Ethics proposed amendments to the regulation governing the acceptance of gifts by executive branch employees for the purpose of (a) implementing the lobbyist gift ban already applicable, by Executive Order of the President, to most political appointees; and (b) imposing limits on the use of gift exceptions by all executive branch employees (not merely political appointees). The proposed rule would render existing exceptions to the gift restrictions inapplicable when the gift giver is both a prohibited source (e.g., a person doing business with the employee’s agency) and a lobbyist or lobbying organization, thus limiting the use of exceptions such as the $20 de minimis exception, the widely attended gathering exception, the social invitation exception, and the exception for meals, refreshments, and entertainment from private entities in a foreign area.
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
