New York Paralegal Blog

By: Joel Irving  The landscape of federal policy surrounding diversity and discrimination underwent a notable transformation during the Trump administration. A series of executive actions signaled a clear intent to move away from established diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and to significantly curtail the application of a legal concept known as "disparate impact." This represented a distinct pivot, emphasizing what the administration termed a "merit-based" system for federal employment and operations. At the forefront of these changes was a significant executive order, "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy." This directive didn't mince words: its stated goal was to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability "in all contexts to the maximum degree possible." For federal agencies, this translated into a mandate to deprioritize the enforcement of disparate impact claims. They were also instructed to review exist...

By: Joel Irving  The legal landscape is built on a series of theories and doctrines, each serving as a crucial pillar in the pursuit of fairness and justice. Recently, the discussion around disparate impact theory has resurfaced, particularly in the context of a past executive order aimed at limiting its application. Understanding the potential consequences of weakening or eliminating such fundamental legal principles is vital for anyone concerned about equality and the rule of law. Disparate impact, simply put, recognizes that seemingly neutral policies or practices can unintentionally discriminate against certain groups based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It focuses on the effects of a policy, rather than the intent behind it. This theory has been instrumental in addressing systemic discrimination in various areas, including employment, housing, and lending. So, what happens when we start chipping away at these legal foundations? Let's consider a few thought...

WASHINGTON – Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. has agreed to pay the United States an additional $3,718,770, bringing the total paid to resolve civil claims arising from the company’s cost charging practices on some of its contracts with the government to $16,570,018, the Justice Department announced today. The Army and other government agencies contract with the Ft. Worth, Texas-based company to purchase helicopters and parts, modifications, customization, and related goods and services. In August 2004, Bell notified the Defense Department’s Inspector General that its billing of the costs of certain subcontracts, work transfers, and other transactions with its subsidiaries, divisions, and affiliated companies had resulted in overcharges to the government. The company submitted a report in 2006 describing its conduct and the financial impact on the government and paid the government $12,851,248.