CFC Blasts AF and DOJ for Vexatious Litigation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.31.16
In the latest decision in SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 19, 2016), the CFC found SUFI (represented by C&M) to be entitled to litigation attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, under both the “bad faith, vexatious litigation” exception to the American Rule and the “small business” provisions, for the entire duration of the proceedings at the ASBCA, the CFC, and the Federal Circuit, which have lasted at this point over a dozen years. The CFC awarded fees at counsel’s full, current rates to account for vexatious conduct and delay and also found that the “special factors” of exceptional results and uniquely experienced counsel supported that same award.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
