CPSC Announces September 4th Public Meeting to Discuss Reform Legislation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.18.08
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will hold a public meeting on Thursday, September 4, 2008, entitled "An Overview of the Consumer Safety Improvement Act of 2008." The purpose of this meeting is to address major provisions and implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which calls for broad reform in the regulation of consumer product safety and the operations of the CPSC. The Act was signed into law by President Bush on Thursday, August 14, 2008.
Acting Chairman Nancy Nord and Commissioner Thomas H. Moore will provide opening remarks to meeting attendees, which will be followed by discussions by the CPSC staff of the following topics:
- Implementation of the Act and public communications;
- Provisions of general applicability contained in the Act; and
- Children's product-specific provisions contained in the Act.
The meeting will conclude with a question and answer session followed by closing remarks.
The meeting will take place on Thursday, September 4, 2008 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building Auditorium, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20230. Registration is free and open to the public.
Crowell & Moring attorneys will be in attendance at the meeting and will thereafter issue a summary of the CPSC's position regarding the new Act.
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
