DOL Announces New LM-10 Guidance and Extended Filing Deadline
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.09.06
On March 7, 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") issued new guidance on employers' LM-10 reporting requirements in the form of additional Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) added to the DOL's Advisory and FAQ issued in November 2005.
The DOL's November 2005 Advisory indicated a much more aggressive enforcement posture with respect to LM-10 reporting, but also created a grace period for reporting -- employers who file compliant LM-10 forms within 90 days of the company's 2005 fiscal year will not be penalized for their failure to submit reports for any prior years. The revised FAQ announces that employers whose fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 will now have until May 15, 2006 to file their fiscal year 1005 LM-10s
The revised Advisory and FAQs clarify who must file annual LM-10 reports, provide additional examples of reportable expenditures, and explain how an employer who has no reportable expenditures for the 2005 fiscal year can still take advantage of the grace period. Unionized employers should carefully review the revised FAQ, as well as the underlying statutes and case law in this very complicated area of the law, to determine their reporting requirements and ensure that appropriate processes are in place to track reportable expenditures.
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
