Introducing Crowell & Moring’s Government Contractor Recovery Practice Performance Review Offering (PRO)
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.16.17
The Government Contracts Group of Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce its Government Contractor Recovery Practice, focused on recovery opportunities for our clients in in the government contracting industry. Our team consists of experienced and highly skilled attorney and non-attorney government contract management professionals who stand ready to assist clients with identifying and pursuing claims based on a variety of contractual theories – including REAs and claims to recover (i) increased performance costs attributable to Government action or delay, (ii) costs resulting from Government-initiated contract termination, (iii) costs of remediating certain environmental pollution and toxic tort litigation covered by certain indemnification clauses, and (iv) other costs to which contractors are entitled by operation of contract or statute. Our Performance Review Offering (PRO) allows, at your request, our team of experienced Crowell & Moring attorneys to provide a “diagnostic” review of the relevant documentation on your contract or program and make a recommendation regarding whether or not to pursue a claim; we can also discuss alternative fee arrangements, including risk-sharing, full and partial contingency arrangements.
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
