1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Jurisdiction Found Over 85-804 Indemnification Clause Breach Claims

Jurisdiction Found Over 85-804 Indemnification Clause Breach Claims

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.01.06

In an important case of first impression, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in The Boeing Co. (Apr. 12, 2006, http://www.crowell.com/pdf/expertise/govtcontracts/ASBCA_decision.pdf), has held that it has jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act to consider claims for the costs of investigation and remediation of ground water pollution and toxic tort litigation under indemnification clauses authorized pursuant to the “residual powers” authority of Public Law 85-804 and 10 U.S.C. § 2354. The Board concluded that Public Law 85-804, 10 U.S.C. § 2354, and statutory and contractual provisions allegedly providing for secretarial and/or congressional approval did not divest the Board of its CDA jurisdiction because, inter alia , acceptance of such arguments would render the indemnification clauses, which were included in prime contracts awarded to Boeing and subcontracts awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation in the 1960s and 1970s, “illusory.”

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