1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Separate CAS Noncompliances May Get Separate SOL

Separate CAS Noncompliances May Get Separate SOL

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.22.14

In Appeal of Fluor Corp., the ASBCA held that the government's claim relating to an alleged CAS 403 noncompliance "was a continuing claim inherently susceptible to being broken down into a series of independent distinct events," namely, each payment by the government for a CAS-non-compliant billing. Thus, the board held that, under the CDA's statute of limitations, the government "knew or should have known" that it had a claim against the contractor as of the date the compliance audit was completed (for amounts paid before that date), but that claims for the same alleged CAS noncompliance in subsequent years would not accrue until the amounts at issue for those years had been billed and paid, a result that may save some government claims from the CDA's 6-year SOL (previously discussed here, here, here, here, and here).


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].”...

View All Insights