1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |HR-Related Coronavirus Q&A: Our Answers to Your Questions

HR-Related Coronavirus Q&A: Our Answers to Your Questions

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.21.20

We have drafted an ‘HR-Related Coronavirus Q&A’ in response to recent developments, and we thought that it might be of interest to you. You will find this Q&A here. In it, we take a look at our clients’ most commonly asked questions regarding the impact of the virus.

The questions and answers in this Q&A are of course of a general nature and should not be considered to be comprehensive legal advice on specific questions and/or cases. Do not hesitate to contact our team if you have any specific questions and/or would like any advice with regard to a concrete situation.

You will also find ‘Coronavirus Workplace Guidelines’ for US employers, which include useful tips and recommendations of a general reach as well (EU-based employers may disregard the US-specific guidelines).

Our team will continue to closely monitor developments and keep you posted.

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].”...