First Pandemic Response Accountability Committee Report Emphasizes Government-Wide Concerns About Fraud and Grant Management
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.19.20
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020, the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (“PRAC”), composed of 21 Offices of Inspector General overseeing agencies that received the most CARES Act funds, released its first report, “Top Challenges Facing Federal Agencies: COVID-19 Emergency Relief and Response Efforts.” The report was derived from information provided by 37 Offices of Inspector General from across the government. PRAC is responsible for leading OIG CARES Act funding oversight. Although the report flags concerns ranging from ballot theft to staffing shortages, the primary challenge identified in the report is the potential for fraud and abuse of Government funding under various programs. The report emphasizes compliance and oversight concerns unique to the large amount of funding (~$2.4 trillion) appropriated under the CARES Act (and other COVID-19 legislation) in conjunction with the need to distribute these funds quickly in the midst of reduced or altered agency staffing and operations due to COVID-19. With 37 Inspectors General asserting their commitment to addressing improper payments and fraud, companies should prioritize compliance now and ensure traceability of grant and contract monies associated with COVID-19 to prepare to respond to audits and reduce the risk of an investigation in the coming year.
Further commentary on the concerns regarding fraud and abuse identified in the PRAC report, including related to potential violations of the federal False Claims Act, will be forthcoming.
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
