Insights

Washington – August 17, 2023: The 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 47 firm lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and 41 lawyers as “Ones to Watch.”

Washington – August 18, 2022: The 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 54 firm lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and 32 lawyers as “Ones to Watch.”

Washington – January 3, 2022: Crowell & Moring elected 13 lawyers to the firm’s partnership, effective January 1, 2022. The firm also promoted seven to the position of senior counsel and 19 associates to the position of counsel. The new partners have been promoted from within the ranks of the firm’s London, New York, and Washington, D.C. offices and from across several practice groups, including Advertising & Media; Antitrust & Competition; Corporate; Energy; Environment & Natural Resources; Government Contracts; Health Care; Technology & Intellectual Property; International Dispute Resolution; Litigation; Mass Tort, Product, and Consumer Litigation; and Privacy & Cybersecurity.

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm. 

On January 30, 2024, the FAR Council issued a proposed rule entitled “Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting” (“Proposed Rule”). The Proposed Rule would: (1) prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering information about job applicants’ compensation history when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract; and (2) require contractors and subcontractors to disclose, in all advertisements for job openings involving work on or in connection with a government contract placed by or on behalf of the contractor or subcontractor, the compensation to be offered to the hired applicant for any position to perform work on or in connection with the contract.

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional (under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, as to public institutions) and a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as applicable to private institutions accepting federal financial assistance) for colleges and universities to consider race as a factor in the admissions process. See Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., No. 20-1199, 2023 WL 4239254 (U.S. June 29, 2023) (“Harvard”), a summary of which can be found here. This decision upended decades of precedent and has caused employers in the private sector to ask how the decision will impact diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DE&I”) initiatives and employment decisions. This article addresses the impact of Harvard, eight months later.

Please join us for the next edition of Third Thursday – Crowell & Moring’s Labor and Employment Update, a webinar series dedicated to helping our clients stay on top of developing law and emerging compliance issues.

Protecting trade secret, confidential, and non-public information is a key issue for many employers that takes many forms, including physical and electronic security, confidentiality agreements and restrictive covenants with employees, and steps to minimize IP leakage. While many of these measures apply to all employers, government contractors may be subject to certain rules that in some cases broaden, or in other cases restrict the methods through which contractors can protect their trade secrets and confidential information. For instance, there are specific statutory and regulatory mechanisms for contractors to protect against the release of trade secret information, such as through the Procurement Integrity Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Additionally, there may be special trade secret considerations for government contractors that develop intellectual property in whole, or in part, with government funds under a federal contract.

Please join us for the next edition of Third Thursday – Crowell & Moring’s Labor and Employment Update, a webinar series dedicated to helping our clients stay on top of developing law and emerging compliance issues.