Lauren Phillips

Associate

Overview

Lauren Phillips is an associate in Crowell & Moring's New York office and a member of the firm's Health Care and Labor and Employment groups. She advises clients on complex regulatory compliance, investigations, and government enforcement matters across the health care and labor and employment landscapes.

Lauren advises a broad range of health care entities (including hospitals, pharmacies, laboratories, med-device companies, and health plans) on compliance with federal and state laws and regulations, including those related to fraud, waste and abuse, telemedicine, licensing, and reimbursement. She partners with clients to design and implement effective compliance programs, conducts internal investigations, and guides organizations through risk adjustment data validation (RADV) audits. Lauren also maintains a broad litigation practice, representing health care clients in complex disputes in both state and federal courts.

Lauren also advises clients on a range of labor and employment matters, including discrimination and retaliation claims and related regulatory compliance. She is committed to pro bono service, representing individuals in immigration proceedings, litigating on behalf of underserved clients, and advising non-profit organizations on regulatory and governance issues.

Prior to joining Crowell, Lauren earned her J.D. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she served as an associate editor of the Cardozo Law Review and was recognized as a Public Service Scholar. She gained firsthand government enforcement experience as a clinical intern at the New York City Department of Law and as a legal intern at the New York State Division of Human Rights—roles that deepened her understanding of regulatory investigations and administrative proceedings. She also provided pro bono legal counsel to filmmakers, visual advocates, and video journalists through the Filmmakers Legal Clinic.

Career & Education

    • Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, J.D., 2025
    • University of Iowa, B.A., history and political science, 2022
    • Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, J.D., 2025
    • University of Iowa, B.A., history and political science, 2022
    • New York
    • New York

Lauren's 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].”...

Lauren's 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].”...