FAR Council Finalizes Definition of Prohibited "Recruitment Fees" Under Anti-Trafficking Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.26.18
On December 20, 2018, the DoD, GSA, and NASA issued a final rule to define “recruitment fees” under FAR subpart 22.17, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and the associated contract clause at FAR 52.222–50. While the prohibition against charging employees “recruitment fees” was added to the regulations in 2015, the FAR Council did not include a definition at that time.
The FAR Council has now finalized the expansive definition, which includes various types of fees that contractors, subcontractors, and their employees or agents are prohibited from charging to employees or potential employees that are covered by FAR 52.222–50. Specifically, “recruitment fees” are fees of any type, including charges, costs, assessments, or other financial obligations, that are associated with the recruiting process, regardless of the time, manner, or location of imposition or collection of the fee. The definition also includes thirteen representative examples, including but not limited to, fees for: (i) obtaining permanent or temporary labor certifications; (ii) acquiring visas; (iii) acquiring photographs and identity or immigration documents, such as passports; (iv) government-mandated fees, such as border crossing fees, levies, or worker welfare funds; and (v) certain transportation and subsistence costs. Such fees are considered “recruitment fees” regardless of whether they are paid in property, money or deducted from wages; and even if the fee is paid back to the employee, or collected by a third party.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Design patents offer protection for the ornamental appearance of a product, focusing on aspects like its shape and surface decoration, as opposed to the functional aspects protected by utility patents. The scope of a design patent is defined by the drawings and any descriptive language within the patent itself. Recent decisions by the Federal Circuit emphasize the need for clarity in the prosecution history of a design patent in order to preserve desired scope to preserve intentional narrowing (and to avoid unintentional sacrifice of desired claim scope).
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 11.18.25
DOJ Announces Major Enforcement Actions Targeting North Korean Remote IT Worker Schemes




