1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Bad Alchemy: Turning Estimates Into Fraud

Bad Alchemy: Turning Estimates Into Fraud

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.08.06

Building on comments at the Nash & Cibinic Roundtable, David Bodenheimer challenges the oxymoronic trend of government agencies and qui tam whistleblowers to assert defective pricing or false claims based upon second-guessing poor estimates. In his article "'False' or 'Inaccurate' Estimates" published in the December 2005 Briefing Paper (http://www.crowell.com/pdf/Expertise/GovtContracts/BriefingPapers_Bodenheimer.pdf), he explains that estimating -- due to its inherently risky and predictive nature -- requires judgmental forecasts long recognized as appropriate by government pricing guidelines and not suitable for defective pricing and fraud suits complaining about bad estimates of future events.

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].”...