1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |To Recuse or Not to Recuse: OGE Updates Guidance

To Recuse or Not to Recuse: OGE Updates Guidance

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.26.16

On July 26, 2016, the Office of Government Ethics issued a final rule updating the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, subpart F, “Seeking Other Employment” (5 C.F.R. 2635), to clarify recusal requirements. Recusals are required when the scope of the federal employee’s duties has a “direct and predictable” effect on the financial interest of an entity with whom the employee is either negotiating prospective employment or with whom the employee has any agreement concerning prospective employment, and the final rule also adds a new section to implement the statutory notification requirements under section 17 of the STOCK Act, which applies to individuals required to file public financial disclosure reports.

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].”...

View All Insights