Sweeping Prohibition on Arbitration of Employment Disputes in 2010 Defense Appropriations
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.28.09
Entities receiving federal contracts or subcontracts in excess of $1 million using funds from the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3326), signed into law on December 22, 2009, will be prohibited from executing or enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses in agreements with employees or independent contractors for claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or for certain torts related to sexual assault or harassment. While limited national security waivers are contemplated, this sweeping prohibition is a significant development for defense contractors and other entities receiving contracts or subcontracts using funds from the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act.
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

