States’ Statutes Of Limitations Apply To Federal FCA Retaliation Claims
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.27.05
Resolving a split among circuits regarding the proper statute of limitations to apply in "retaliation" claims brought by aggrieved whistleblowers against their employers under the federal civil False Claims Act, the Supreme Court in Graham County Soil & Water Conserv. Dist. v. U.S. ex rel. Wilson (June 20, 2005) held that, instead of the familiar six-year limitations period for substantive FCA allegations, the most analogous statute of limitations under state law (typically, state employment or other tort law) applies. The majority reasoned that, otherwise, the limitations period would be left without a starting point and would be inconsistent with the general rule that Congress drafts statutes of limitations to begin when the plaintiff has a “complete and present cause of action.”
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
