1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Federal Circuit Reaffirms Deferential OCI Standard

Federal Circuit Reaffirms Deferential OCI Standard

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.06.09

The Federal Circuit in Axiom Resource Mgmt., Inc. v. U.S. (May 4, 2009) reversed the CFC decision granting a protest on the basis of an organization conflict of interest ("OCI"), and, in doing so, reaffirmed that, when the CFC reviews an OCI determination by a CO, including, in this case, the adequacy of a mitigation plan, it must apply the deferential "arbitrary and capricious" standard of the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, the appellate court criticized the CFC for accepting litigation affidavits and relying on them when there was no need to supplement the administrative record, along the way casting doubt on the vitality of the Esch factors commonly used by the CFC in deciding whether to supplement an agency record in a bid protest case.

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].”...