A Contractor’s Guide to Trump’s Diversity Training Order

Dominique L. Casimir, Brooke T. Iley, and Tjasse L. Fritz






An expanded version of our September 24, 2020, post, Trump Administration Bans Contractors from Providing Certain Types of Diversity Training, was published in Law360 on October 2, 2020. Read on for more information about the order and how contractors should respond.

Federal contractors have long provided various types of anti-harassment, nondiscrimination and diversity and inclusion, or D&I, training to their employees. After the death of George Floyd and the nationwide protests that followed, D&I training has proliferated in workplaces across the country, including within federal agencies and in the contractor community.

In response to the widespread public protests for racial equality, many companies and executives issued public statements denouncing racism. Many also pledged millions of dollars to social justice organizations. In numerous workplaces, employees have taken the initiative to organize book clubs and discussion circles focused specifically on promoting open workplace discussions about race. Some employers have provided lists of resources for employees seeking to learn more about issues of race.

On Sept. 22, the Trump administration issued a bombshell executive order purporting to ban certain types of D&I training,[1] leaving federal contractors scrambling to determine how best to comply, and how to identify and mitigate the new risks they now face.

Why now?

President Donald Trump has been vocal about his views on the discourse of racial issues following the nationwide protests for racial equality that started at the beginning of the summer.

In June, the president rejected calls to rename military bases honoring Confederate generals.[2] The Trump administration issued a memorandum on Sept. 4,[3] directing agencies to identify:

all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on critical race theory,[4] white privilege, or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil [and to] identify all available avenues within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these un-American propaganda training sessions.

The executive order that followed three weeks later takes aim at contractor-provided workplace D&I training that the Trump administration considers divisive and objectionable.

Please click here for the full article.

Trump Administration Bans Contractors from Providing Certain Types of Diversity Training

Brooke T. Iley, Dominique L. Casimir, and Tjasse L. Fritz







On Tuesday evening, the Trump administration surprised the federal contracting community by issuing an Executive Order (“EO”) titled “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” that will ban federal contractors from conducting certain types of anti-discrimination training. In particular, the EO prohibits workplace racial sensitivity and diversity and inclusion (“D&I”) training programs that contain so-called “divisive content,” defined in the EO as instilling a belief in the existence of systemic racism and inherent bias. The EO expands an earlier ban issued in a September 4, 2020, memorandum that prohibits certain anti-discrimination training from being conducted within federal agencies.

The EO comes on the heels of a widespread social and racial justice movement that dominated much of the summer of 2020, in response to which corporate America has taken a stand, with companies pledging millions to social justice reform movements. An overwhelming number of employers either have offered or plan to offer some form of diversity training to their employees. This latest EO leaves many federal contractors and subcontractors wondering whether and how to proceed, and what penalties they may face if they offer such training. Continue reading “Trump Administration Bans Contractors from Providing Certain Types of Diversity Training”

Our Clarion Call: Thoughts on Our 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge

Dominique L. Casimir and Justin A. Chiarodo

A few weeks ago we wrote about our Government Contracts practice group’s decision to opt in to the 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge (the “Challenge”) launched by the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Section of Public Contract Law. The 21-Day Challenge was a syllabus of 21 daily assignments—curated for the ABA by Dominique Casimir—focusing on the Black American experience, including Black history, identity and culture, the experience of anti-Black racism in America, and the intersection between systemic racism and the legal profession.

What We Did: We invited our clients to participate with us in a series of weekly discussion groups to share perspectives on the racial equity movement currently underway in this country, to reflect on how we got here, and to challenge ourselves to consider what we are doing—in our respective workplaces, and as individual lawyers—to work towards racial equality. This experience was unlike anything we have done with our clients before, and admittedly we were not sure how clients would respond when we invited them to engage with us in an ongoing series of small-group, candid discussions about a topic as sensitive as race. We were incredibly humbled that so many of our clients enthusiastically welcomed this opportunity. Continue reading “Our Clarion Call: Thoughts on Our 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge”

Our Clarion Call: Join Us in the ABA’s 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge

Dominique L. Casimir and Justin A. Chiarodo

This will not be a typical Government Contracts Navigator post. But it concerns an issue as important to the government contracts bar as any new law, regulation, or judicial decision. We all have stories about how we came to practice in this vibrant field, which plays such a critical role in protecting our nation and advancing the public policies of the United States—including due process, fair competition, and equal opportunity. But we cannot ignore the reality that the great diversity of the government contracts law practice is not well-reflected in our bar of practitioners.

The events of recent weeks have led us to think hard about we what can do to help achieve greater racial diversity in our practice area. As lawyers, we typically solve the most complex problems we face by developing creative teams whose members are open to learning, collaborating, and communicating. That is why, as a practice group, we’ve jumped at the chance to participate in the ABA Section of Public Contract Law’s 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge (the “21-Day Challenge”). We believe that the 21-Day Challenge gives us an opportunity to learn, collaborate, and communicate with one another on one of the most pressing and important challenges in our professional lives: creating and maintaining a diverse and inclusive government contracts bar. Our practice group is “all in,” and we invite you to join us as we answer the ABA Section of Public Contract Law’s invitation to participate in the 21-Day Challenge. Continue reading “Our Clarion Call: Join Us in the ABA’s 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge”

12 Steps for Reducing CARES Act Enforcement Risks

William E. Lawler III, Gregory F. Linsin, Justin A. Chiarodo, Dominique L. Casimir, and Sara N. Gerber

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act provides more than a trillion dollars in relief to both small and large businesses in the form of loans, grants and tax credits, designed to quickly stabilize the economy during the ongoing crisis.

But this is not free money: The CARES Act also includes a robust oversight and enforcement regime to enable the government to combat fraud, waste and abuse. Experience shows that when this much government money is being spent, there will be investigations and enforcement actions.

The CARES Act is complex with evolving regulatory guidelines, and this increases the potential for missteps by companies trying to take advantage of the program’s benefits while navigating program requirements. How can companies manage this uncertainty and reduce the risk of becoming an enforcement target?

We offer 12 suggested steps.

To read the full article that was published in Law360 on May 11, 2020, please click here.

Implementation Guidance for Section 3610 of the CARES Act

Brian S. Gocial and Dominique L. Casimir

As we summarized on March 31, 2020, CARES Act Section 3610 throws an immediate lifeline to qualifying firms whose workforce has been displaced by coronavirus COVID-19 shutdowns. On April 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DOD”) issued Class Deviation 2020-O0013 authorizing contracting officers to immediately use a new cost principle, DFARS 231.205-79, to implement section 3610; and on April 9, 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense issued Implementation Guidance for Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and Frequently Asked Questions. This blog post summarizes the new Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) clause and guidance.

What is the purpose of CARES Act Section 3610 and DFARS 231.205-79?

Deviation 2020-O0013 establishes a new cost principle that will allow recovery of employee leave costs related to the COVID-19 pandemic where appropriate. The Class Deviation recognizes that “contractors are struggling to maintain a mission-ready workforce due to work site closures, personnel quarantines, and state and local restrictions on movement related to the COVID-19 pandemic that cannot be resolved through remote work.” To that end, contracting officers are instructed to use DFARS 231.205-79 “to appropriately balance flexibilities and limitations” and are directed to “consider the immediacy of the specific circumstances of the contractor involved and respond accordingly. The survival of many of the businesses the CARES Act is designed to assist may depend on this efficiency.” Continue reading “Implementation Guidance for Section 3610 of the CARES Act”

DoD Urges Contracting Officer Transparency in COVID-19 Impacts

Albert B. Krachman and Dominique L. Casimir

The Department of Defense’s (“DoD”) Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued Guidance on March 10, 2020, addressing internal and external communications in response to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. See Planning for Potential Novel Coronavirus Contract Impacts.

The Guidance states that the Contracting Officers (as distinguished from Program personnel) hold the contractual authority to address contract performance impacts related to COVID-19. Moreover, the Guidance encourages close communication between Contracting Officers and contractors, and stresses Contracting Officer transparency, a term not normally seen in contract administration guidance. In pertinent part the Guidance states as follows:

Communication between the Government and contractors is key to total workforce safety and mission continuity. Therefore, contracting officers should be as transparent as possible as they make decisions potentially impacting contract performance or contractor personnel. Contracting officers should also encourage their contractor site leads/leadership to engage with their employees as soon as possible to share information and discuss any COVID-19 concerns they have, and ask their contractors to identify potential impacts to the welfare and safety of their workforce or contract performance, which impacts our total force. Continue reading “DoD Urges Contracting Officer Transparency in COVID-19 Impacts”

Examining and Dispelling Common Misconceptions about Suspension and Debarment

Dominique L. Casimir

Contractors are well aware that being suspended or debarred renders them ineligible for federal contracts and subcontracts. Many contractors may believe that suspension and debarment are not realistic risks for them if they already have a robust ethics and compliance program or strong internal controls. Nevertheless, the risk of suspension and debarment can crop up suddenly and unexpectedly, such as when misconduct has been concealed or errors have gone undetected. For this reason, contractors should have a baseline understanding about what to do if they must engage with a Suspending and Debarring Official (“SDO”). This post explores ten common misconceptions about suspension and debarment, with the aim of helping contractors understand the landscape and respond effectively.

Common Misconception #1: We have already settled with another agency and paid a fine, so we will not be suspended or debarred. Continue reading “Examining and Dispelling Common Misconceptions about Suspension and Debarment”