1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CFC Gives CICA Its Bite

CFC Gives CICA Its Bite

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.03.08

In declaring invalid the override of a Competition in Contracting Act stay in Nortel Gov't Solutions, Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 10, 2008), a case litigated by C&M, the Court of Federal Claims rejected the government's "urgent and compelling" basis for the override given that it (1) failed to establish the adverse consequences of maintaining the status quo, (2) did not consider whether reasonable alternatives to the override exist, (3) afforded "unacceptably brief treatment" to the potential costs and risks to the government if GAO recommended sustaining the protest, and (4) did not "consider the impact of its override decision on competition at all." The Court also rejected the claim that the override served the "best interests" of the government, finding that a "strong preference" for a "new" or a "more cost effective" contract is insufficient to justify the override.

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