1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CFC Blasts AF and DOJ for Vexatious Litigation

CFC Blasts AF and DOJ for Vexatious Litigation

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.31.16

In the latest decision in SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 19, 2016), the CFC found SUFI (represented by C&M) to be entitled to litigation attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, under both the “bad faith, vexatious litigation” exception to the American Rule and the “small business” provisions, for the entire duration of the proceedings at the ASBCA, the CFC, and the Federal Circuit, which have lasted at this point over a dozen years. The CFC awarded fees at counsel’s full, current rates to account for vexatious conduct and delay and also found that the “special factors” of exceptional results and uniquely experienced counsel supported that same award.

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