1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Federal Circuit Drops Bombshells on CDA Statute of Limitations and CAS "Materiality" Test

Federal Circuit Drops Bombshells on CDA Statute of Limitations and CAS "Materiality" Test

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.11.14

In Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. U.S., the Federal Circuit upended the prevailing case law on the CDA statute of limitations by holding that the six-year SOL for filing CDA claims is "not jurisdictional" and "need not be addressed before deciding the merits." In denying the merits of the government's $80 million CAS 418 claim, the Federal Circuit also held that the cost of Sikorsky's management and supervision was "not a material amount of the total pool costs" because managers/supervisors comprised only 7 to 14 percent of the pertinent workforce, clarifying that materiality requires "a significant amount."


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].”...