1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Confidentiality Agreement FAR Provision Does Not Permit Employee Theft

Confidentiality Agreement FAR Provision Does Not Permit Employee Theft

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.13.17

Crowell & Moring attorneys David Robbins and Trina Fairley Barlow published an article entitled “FAR Confidentiality Rule Doesn’t Authorize Employee Theft” that dispels common myths about the FAR’s confidentiality agreement provisions at 3.909 and the related contract clauses at FAR 52.203-18 and -19. Although purported whistleblowers are more commonly arguing they are entitled to take contractor documents in support of an enforcement proceeding, this article explains why such arguments are well beyond the scope of the regulation and suggests ways to respond if such a situation arises.

A copy of the article may be found here.

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