1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CFC Dismisses Adverse Past Performance Challenge

CFC Dismisses Adverse Past Performance Challenge

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.29.10

In Kemron Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (May 27, 2010), the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the contractor's complaint that the government issued an unfair, inaccurate, and unreasonable evaluation of its performance, finding that the contractor had failed to meet a jurisdictional prerequisite required by the Contract Disputes Act: that it file a "claim" with the contracting officer. Though the contractor engaged in a series of written and electronic communications with various individuals at the agency expressing its disagreement with its past performance evaluation, the Court concluded that none of the communications constituted (1) "a written demand seeking . . . other contract relief[] . . . as a matter of right" (2) "submitted to the contracting officer for a decision."

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24

Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard

On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm. ...