1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |State Higher Ed Entities Face Arm-of-the-State Test

State Higher Ed Entities Face Arm-of-the-State Test

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.25.12

In US ex rel. Oberg v. Ky. Higher Educ., the Fourth Circuit considered whether corporate entities created by several states to provide higher education financing (and accused of making false claims to DOE) are "persons" subject to FCA liability. The court stated that "the critical inquiry is whether [the entities] are truly subject to sufficient state control to render them a part of the state, and not a 'person,'" and instructed that Eleventh Amendment "arm-of-the-state" analysis applies to determine if they are subject to liability.


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].”...