1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |False Claim Need Not Be "Presented" By Defendant

False Claim Need Not Be "Presented" By Defendant

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.20.05

In the latest in a series of cases interpreting the False Claims Act's "presentment" element, the court in U.S. v. Sequel Contractors, Inc., 2005 WL 3307026 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2005), held that a contractor submitting a false claim for payment to its county-government customer, which then submitted a request for partial reimbursement to the federal government, could be liable under the FCA, because the statute only requires that someone (in this case the county-government customer), and not necessarily the defendant itself, "present" the false claim to the federal government, as long as the defendant "causes" the ultimate presentation. The court also held that, although actionable false claims must be made "knowingly," the knowledge in question is knowledge of the claim's falsity, not knowledge that the ultimate recipient of the claim would be the federal government.

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].”...

View All Insights