Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) Section 3610 — Billing and Contractual Relief for Government Contractors When Employees Cannot Work due to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.27.20
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), passed by Congress today, offers relief specifically targeted to federal contractors whose employees (1) cannot perform work on a “site that has been approved by the Federal Government ” during the COVID-19 public health emergency due to facility closures or other restrictions and (2) cannot telework because their job duties cannot be performed remotely. Section 3610 of the CARES Act authorizes agencies to use any available funds to modify affected contracts – without consideration – to reimburse paid leave, including sick leave, that a contractor provides to keep its employees or subcontractors in a ready state. The authorized reimbursements may cover an average of 40 hours per week, “at the minimum applicable contract billing rates.” The maximum reimbursement must be reduced, however, by the amount of any credit the contractor is allowed pursuant to Division G (“Tax Credits for Paid Sick and Paid Family and Medical Leave”) of the recently enacted Families First Coronavirus Response Act, and by any other applicable credits that the contractor is allowed under the CARES Act.
The authorization of this relief is congressional acknowledgement of the critical role that contractors play in supporting the federal government and the need to ensure the availability of that support going forward. However, the CARES Act grants authority rather than mandating relief, which could lead to inconsistent application among various agencies. Affected contractors should watch for any forthcoming agency guidance and be prepared to educate government customers about this Congressional authorization.
Please Join Us for a Government Contracts Webinar
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
