Court Orders Opening of Pandora's Box
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.12.14
In U.S. ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co. (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2014), the court ordered the defendants in a qui tam FCA case to produce internal reports and other documents that were prepared during the course of internal investigations initiated in response to "tips" regarding potential misconduct, even when the tips were made directly to the defendants' Law Department, the reports were transmitted to the Law Department, and the investigations were initiated and managed by senior in-house attorneys. The court concluded that the materials were not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the investigations were "undertaken pursuant to regulatory law and corporate policy"— i.e., the contract clause required by the FAR Mandatory Disclosure rules, which set forth requirements for a contractor's code of business ethics and conduct, compliance program, and internal controls system—"rather than for the purpose of obtaining legal advice," and that they were not protected by the work product doctrine because they were not prepared in anticipation of litigation.
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
