1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Utilities React to Confusing Buy America Restrictions

Utilities React to Confusing Buy America Restrictions

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.17.13

As a result of recent changes in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and how those changes are being implemented by federal and state agencies, utilities are now facing expanded application of two longstanding, but different, Buy America provisions of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration on the use of foreign iron, steel, and manufactured goods on relocation agreements with state agencies. Utility industry representatives have objected and requested that DOT clarify the requirements, establish consistent, DOT-wide Buy America provisions, and implement a transition period during which the restrictions would not apply, and CALTRANS, a California state agency, has sought a waiver for a significant project, prompting a spectrum of thoughtful comments.


Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24

Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard

On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm. ...