1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |SBA Proposes Sweeping Expansion of the Mentor-Protégé Program

SBA Proposes Sweeping Expansion of the Mentor-Protégé Program

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.13.15

On February 5, 2015, the SBA issued a proposed rule implementing portions of FY 2013 NDAA regarding the establishment of a universal mentor-protégé program available to all small businesses (instead of just certain SBA-approved 8(a) contractors under the current program) that would allow, among other benefits, approved mentor-protégés to compete as a joint venture for set-aside awards for which the protégé would otherwise be eligible. The SBA is seeking comments (due by April 6, 2015) on a number of aspects of this proposed rule, including whether the SBA should require all joint ventures in this program to be formed as separate legal entities and whether there should be a maximum of two mentors per protégé.

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].”...