Satellite-Sensor FCA Suit Comes Crashing Down to Earth
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.09.17
On August 3, 2017 in United States ex rel. Mateski v. Raytheon Co, a district judge in the Central District of California dismissed a $1 billion False Claims Act (FCA) suit brought by a former Raytheon engineer who alleged that the company overbilled the government and failed to meet product specifications on a contract for satellite sensors. Although Relator had amended his complaint five times, the Fifth Amended Complaint still failed to identify a single specific false representation that Raytheon made to the government. Moreover, the complaint contained only one sentence addressing the materiality of Raytheon’s alleged nonconformity with contract specifications. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in United States ex rel. Escobar on the implied certification theory of liability, the district court found that relator’s barebones allegations of nonconforming deliveries failed to meet the FCA’s demanding materiality standard and the heightened pleading requirements of 9(b) which were unlikely to be cured by granting further leave to amend.
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
