Compliance Stuff

On May 11, 2026, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a single mandatory racial sensitivity training did not meet the high bar for a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 0:00 3:51 Quick Hits The Tenth Circuit held that a single mandatory racial sensitivity training—and its alleged aftereffects—did not meet the high bar for a hostile work environment claim under Title VII or Section 1981 . The court found that training materials using terms like “white exceptionalism” and “white fragility” were not enough standing alone, because the plaintiff could not show they actually changed his job duties or advancement opportunities. A failure to investigate employee complaints about training content did not independently create a hostile environment , but the court signaled it could strengthen a claim where other allegations are more substantial. Summary In Young v. Colorado Department of Correction...

The Supreme Court has recently addressed, and will soon further clarify, the scope of liability facing government contractors.  In  The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal , the Court issued a unanimous decision limiting interlocutory appeals of the  Yearsley  defense. At the same time, contractors await the Court’s ruling in  Hencely v. Fluor Corp ., which will address whether federal law preempts state tort claims against contractors operating in a military context. Together, these cases shape contractors’ litigation risk, strategy, and exposure. Yearsley  Defense Not Immediately Appealable As discussed previously,  GEO Group  involved detainees who alleged that GEO’s work policies violated federal and state law. GEO argued that it was not liable under  Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co . because ICE authorized and directed the challenged conduct. The district court rejected that defense, and the Tenth Circuit held that the ruling was not immed...

In  Lawson v. Spirit AeroSystems , Inc. , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the forfeiture of certain stock awards for violating a covenant not to compete.  Like the Seventh Circuit in  LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge (which applied Delaware law), the Tenth Circuit concluded that, under Kansas law, the remedy of forfeiting future compensation is not subject to the same reasonableness standard as traditional enforcement of a non-compete obligation.  The Tenth Circuit reached this conclusion even though the executive’s agreement included both a forfeiture-for-competition provision and traditional enforcement rights ( i.e. , the right for the company to pursue monetary damages and specific performance), because the agreement terms enabled the forfeiture provision to be severed from the traditional enforcement provisions. Background and the Court’s Analysis A retirement agreement allowed the former CEO of Spirit AeroSystems (“Spirit”) to receive cash payments ...