1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Whistleblower's FCA Claims Fail Public Disclosure and First-to-File Bars

Whistleblower's FCA Claims Fail Public Disclosure and First-to-File Bars

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.01.13

In U.S. ex rel. Beauchamp v. Academi Training Center, Inc. (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2013), in which C&M represented the defendant, the court dismissed all claims that Academi had violated the False Claims Act by allegedly falsifying its labor invoices and failing to qualify Afghanistan-based security personnel on certain weapons properly. The court held that public disclosure barred both claims because they either had been publicly disclosed in the media or in an earlier qui tam action brought against Academi (resulting in a judgment in favor of Academi with C&M defending), but also that the labor claim was precluded by the first-to-file bar because it was based on the underlying facts in a related and earlier-filed qui tam suit that was pending when the Beauchamp complaint was filed.


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