Costs of Air Travel Limited to the “Lowest Priced Airfare Available to the Contractor”
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.14.09
By a final rule effective January 11, 2010, the travel cost principle (FAR 31.205-46) has been amended to limit the cost of air travel to the “lowest priced airfare available to the contractor,” except in limited circumstances. Instead of simply limiting a contractor's recovery of air travel costs for employees who are authorized to fly in premium classes to the lowest airfare available to that particular contractor based on agreements that particular contractor has negotiated with an airline – which is the stated purpose of the amendment – the new rule uses confusing language that is likely to be misinterpreted as imposing a broader limit on allowability that will be virtually impossible to administer in light of the variability in the price of air travel, including even different fares on the same flight, both for employees who are actually charged non-premium fares that are greater than the lowest theoretically "available" fare to a particular contractor and on the many contractors that do not even have negotiated agreements with airlines.
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
