Too Late: Another Government Claim Barred by CDA Statute of Limitations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.09.14
In Laguna Constr. (May 29, 2014), the ASBCA barred the government's claim under the CDA statute of limitations when DCAA had issued a report, more than six years prior, finding that the contractor's subcontract management system was "inadequate" and resulted in "a significant risk . . . relative to allocability, allowability, and reasonableness of subcontract costs billed to the U.S. Government." Even though that report did not identify any specific government claim, the Board found that the government knew or should have known of the basis for its specific claim "no later than" the date that DCAA provided the report to the ACO with its general criticisms, emphasizing that the "events fixing liability should have been known when they occurred unless they can be reasonably found to have been either concealed or 'inherently unknowable' at that time," the latest in a string of decisions interpreting the CDA statute of limitations as to government cost claims (discussed here, here, here, here, here, and here).
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].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
