1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Are You Cyber Secure Under the DFARS Rule?

Are You Cyber Secure Under the DFARS Rule?

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.17.14

With a revised regulatory regime still rippling through the defense industry, DoD fundamentally reshaped the cybersecurity rules in the DoD Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement in November 2013 by (1) imposing 51 mandatory security controls for DoD-controlled technical information; (2) requiring the DFARS "Safeguarding" clause in all DoD contracts and solicitations; (3) mandating that contractors flow down the requirements, even to commercial subcontractors; and (4) defining detailed reporting requirements for certain types of security  "incidents" or breaches. In a "View from Crowell & Moring: Getting Ahead of the DFARS Safeguarding Rule" published in Bloomberg BNA’s Federal Contracts Report, David Bodenheimer, Evan Wolff, and Kate Growley discuss the definitional gaps, compliance pitfalls, and practical pointers for determining the reach of the DFARS Safeguarding Rule, the mandate for "adequate security," the scope of the reporting requirements, and the emerging lessons learned in navigating these game-changing cybersecurity safeguards governing DoD procurements.


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].”...

View All Insights