The DoD Issues Memo Regarding Section 3610 of the CARES Act; Implementing Guidance to Follow
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.31.20
On March 30, 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acting Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) issued the Managing Defense Contracts Impacts of the Novel Coronavirus Memorandum. The Memorandum recognizes the challenges the Department of Defense faces in response to COVID-19, and reiterates the importance of ensuring the health and vitality of the defense industrial base (DIB) during this national emergency. The Memorandum notes the regulatory tools already in place to address COVID-19 impacts—e.g., FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays, various termination clauses, various changes clauses, and FAR 52.212-4 for commercial contracts—and highlights the protection of health and safety of contract employees as an important consideration when assessing requests for equitable adjustment. In addition to pointing to these traditional clauses, the Memorandum recognizes Section 3610 of the CARES Act as a mechanism to allow recovery for COVID-19 impacts and states that DPC will provide implementing guidance for such recovery. The Memorandum concludes by noting that contracting officers “are trusted and empowered to make the difficult decisions on appropriate adjustment to each contract” and that they “must work closely with our industry partners to ensure continuity of operations and mission effectiveness, while protecting the continuing vitality of the DIB that is so critical to our national security.”
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
