Compliance Stuff

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a significant legal opinion concluding that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) longstanding interpretation of Title VII disparate impact liability is unconstitutional. The opinion questions aspects of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), the federal framework that has guided employers’ validation of employment tests and selection procedures for nearly 50 years. While the DOJ opinion does not change Title VII itself and is not binding on federal courts, it signals a potentially significant shift in federal enforcement priorities and creates new uncertainty for employers. For HR, compliance, legal, and talent acquisition professionals, the key question is straightforward: Should employers change how they evaluate seemingly neutral employment practices, including tests and other selection procedures? At least for now, the answer is generally no. A Brief Refresher: Disparate Impact an...

Recently, there have been many questions regarding the collection of demographic data from employees and applicants by employers.  Executive Order 14173  and other  executive and agency actions  by the Trump administration have caused organizations to rethink whether information on race/ethnicity and sex should be collected and, if so, under what circumstances. However, record keeping requirements stemming from  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act  (Title VII) and the  Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures  (UGESP) to collect demographic information from employees and applicants alike clearly remain, which are further strengthened by precedence in the courts. One such court case is  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Crothall Services Group, Inc (Crothall) . In this case, EEOC alleged that Crothall violated § 709(c) of Title VII and an EEOC recordkeeping guideline, 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(A) by failing to maintain record...