The Global Collision Of Privacy & Homeland Security
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.10.06
As the war on terrorism becomes increasingly dependent upon international cooperation and information sharing, Homeland Security contractors engaged in building these trans-border information pipelines face escalating risks of running afoul of more potent privacy regimes abroad where the Canadian Privacy Commissioner has described the "privacy landscape" as a "battlefield" in which "the world has become a more dangerous place." In their recent article "When Homeland Security Goes Abroad: The Global Collision of Privacy & Anti-Terrorism Laws" published in the Federal Contracts Report on April 25, 2006 (http://www.crowell.com/pdf/newsroom/ BNA_Bodenheimer-Meade.pdf), David Bodenheimer and Kris Meade of C&M examine the privacy requirements in the United States and abroad, identifying risks to Homeland Security contractors who may be caught in the global crossfire on the privacy battlefield.
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
