ASBCA Applies Affirmative Misconduct Standard In Denying Contractor's Estoppel Defense
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.23.06
Despite the Government's earlier approvals of CAS Disclosure Statements found to have disclosed the contractor's accounting practice, the ASBCA in United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney found no affirmative misconduct by the government estopping it from asserting a retrospective claim based on non-compliance with CAS. In following guidance from the Federal Circuit that to prevail on estoppel the Company was required to prove affirmative misconduct by the government, the Board found no inherent conflict between the Supreme Court's rulings in Winstar and other cases that, "when the United States enters into contract relations, its rights and duties therein are governed generally by the law applicable to contracts between private individuals" and Federal Circuit law applicable "in the context of the government's performance of contractual duties in conjunction with CAS rules and regulations . . . not applicable to contracts between private litigants."
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
