Announcing C&M Health Law, Crowell & Moring's New Health Care Blog
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.25.14
Crowell & Moring's Health Care Group is pleased to announce its new blog, C&M Health Law (www.cmhealthlaw.com).
Our goal is to provide real-time analysis and commentary on the latest developments in health care law and policy. We intend to provide value to readers by being insightful, analytical, and instructive regarding an increasingly complex and heavily regulated health care industry.
The blog's attorney authors are part of a diverse and growing practice from coast to coast. We have deep experience in the Affordable Care Act, health care antitrust, managed care, fraud and abuse (including Stark, anti-kickback and False Claims Act matters), Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug Plans, Medicaid, the FEHBP, privacy and litigation throughout the field.
Our team serves a broad range of clients, including all of the top ten health insurers and many of the nation's leading health care providers and academic institutions, suppliers, and manufacturers, trade and professional associations, and emerging businesses. We have experience representing clients in all forms of civil and criminal disputes, including government enforcement actions, as well as meeting unique client needs across transactional, counseling, and compliance practices.
We invite you to follow the blog at www.cmhealthlaw.com and learn more about its authors.
You can also get updates via RSS feed or via email subscription by entering your email address in the field above "Topics" on the left-hand side of the blog.
Please contact the blog's editors, Art Lerner and Xavier Baker, with any questions.
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
