No PRB Cost Adjustment For Segment Closings
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.02.10
In related decisions filed on April 29, the Court of Federal Claims effectively precluded contractors from recovering any costs for unfunded post-retirement benefits (primarily retiree medical and life insurance) in connection with business segment closings, absent a specific contract provision promising to indemnify the contractor for the unfunded liability. In Raytheon v. U.S., the court held that benefits covered by so-called 401(h) subaccounts in the contractor's pension plan (a relatively uncommon situation) are not "pension benefits" and, therefore, are not subject to the segment-closing provisions of CAS 413; in Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S., the court held that pay-as-you-go benefit plans covering retired employees and dependents (by far the more common situation) are not subject to the provisions of CAS 413 requiring "segment closing" adjustments for pension costs.
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
