Ambiguity Remains After Escobar
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.09.16
In U.S. ex rel. Nelson v. Sanford-Brown Ltd. (Oct. 24, 2016), the Seventh Circuit, applying the materiality standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Escobar (discussion available here), held that the relator’s allegations that the college inflated grades and job placement figures and paid bonuses to employees for recruitment to fraudulently obtain federal student aid money failed because there was no evidence that the college had made any express or implied representations with its claims for payment or evidence that the government’s payment decision would likely have been different had it known of the alleged misrepresentations. In contrast, the Eighth Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Weston Educ. Inc. (Oct. 19, 2016) held that similar allegations withstood summary judgment (as noted by C&M here), suggesting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Escobar may not have resolved the circuit split on implied certification after all.
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
