48 C.F.R. § 222.7402

222.7402 Policy.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Departments and agencies are prohibited from using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-118) or subsequent DoD appropriations acts for any contract (including task or delivery orders and bilateral modifications adding new work) in excess of $1 million, unless the contractor agrees not to—

(1) Enter into any agreement with any of its employees or independent contractors that requires, as a condition of employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree to resolve through arbitration—

(i) Any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or

(ii) Any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; or

(2) Take any action to enforce any provision of an existing agreement with an employee or independent contractor that mandates that the employee or independent contractor resolve through arbitration—

(i) Any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or

(b) No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-118) or subsequent DoD appropriations acts may be expended unless the contractor certifies that it requires each covered subcontractor to agree not to enter into, and not to take any action to enforce, any provision of any agreement, as described in paragraph (a) of this section, with respect to any employee or independent contractor performing work related to such subcontract.

[75 FR 27947, May 19, 2010. Redesignated at 75 FR 76297, Dec. 8, 2010; 76 FR 38048, June 29, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: Horne v. GE Aviation Sys., L.L.C., 2024 Ohio 3171 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Horne v. GE Aviation Sys., L.L.C., 2024 Ohio 3171 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “1 {¶15} The Franken Amendment is codified in 48 C.F.R. 222.7402. This regulation provides in relevant part that: Departments and agencies are prohibited from using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act ( Pub.”

Schweyen v. Univ. of Montana-Missoula (D. Mont. 2022). · cites it 2× “2981 , 3022 (2018), and is a codified federal regulation, 48 C.F.R. §§ 222.7402 (a), 222.7405, 252.”

OneMain Fin. Inc. & Raul Rincon v. Aida Flores (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “4 26 x STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 30, 2014, Aida Flores ("Appellee" or "Flores") filed the instant lawsuit alleging that OneMain's termination of her employment constituted discrimination on the basis of age and disability. (CR 4-15).”

Hansbrough v. Marshall Dennehey, P.C., 2026 Ohio 657 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “Its analysis, however, is highly instructive because of the parallels between the Franken Amendment (codified at 48 C.F.R. 222.7402) and the EFAA. As summarized by the First District: Essentially, the Franken Amendment provides that a defense contractor receiving a government…”

— 48 C.F.R. § 222.7402(a)(1) — 1 case

Horne v. GE Aviation Sys., L.L.C., 2024 Ohio 3171 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “1 {¶15} The Franken Amendment is codified in 48 C.F.R. 222.7402. This regulation provides in relevant part that: Departments and agencies are prohibited from using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act ( Pub.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.