1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |First Means First: Dismissal of Prior Related Actions No Cure For Relator’s First-to-File Defect

First Means First: Dismissal of Prior Related Actions No Cure For Relator’s First-to-File Defect

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.15.17

The Fourth Circuit held in United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton – its third decision in this protracted litigation – that the False Claims Act’s first-to-file rule required dismissal of the relator’s action, because relator brought his case while related cases were pending even though those related cases had since been dismissed and the relator’s complaint subsequently amended.  The court explained that the statutory text of the first-to-file rule is “unambiguous” and “affords courts no flexibility to accommodate an improperly-filed action when its earlier-filed counterpart ceases to be pending.”  The court acknowledged that its holding “may raise statute of limitations problems” for some FCA relators, but noted that (1) the FCA’s objective of putting the government on notice of fraud was already met by the first-filed actions, and (2) FCA defendants also have an interest “in repose and avoiding stale claims outside the limitations period.”

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].”...

View All Insights