1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |A focus on multinationals: Whistleblower incentives on the international stage

A focus on multinationals: Whistleblower incentives on the international stage

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.05.21

2020 was one of the first years in memory when many multinationals saw a reduction in the number of internal whistleblower complaints, and a sharp increase in the number of external whistleblower complaints. In this environment, several countries around the world are finding ways to incentivize external whistleblower complaints, including—following the United States’ lead—providing bounties tied to money that governments recover as a result of those complaints. In this article by Crowell & Moring Partner Preston Pugh and Incoming 2022 First Year Associate Danielle Alvarez, part one of a two-part series, we discuss the development of these laws and the specific types of complaints whistleblower bounty laws cover. In part two, we will provide recommendations on how multinationals can best prepare for these developments.

Contacts

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].”...