1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Set-aside Determination Must Be Industry-Specific

Set-aside Determination Must Be Industry-Specific

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.07.12

In DynaLantic Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, a small business challenged on constitutional grounds a Navy set-aside for 8(a) small disadvantaged businesses of a simulator buy. The D.C. district court held that there is sufficient evidence of discrimination that limits minority business development for the 8(a) program to withstand a facial challenge, but that, without an agency determination of discrimination in the military simulation and training industry specifically, the Navy was enjoined from using an 8(a) set-aside procurement for the simulator.

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].”...