1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CFC Rejects Yet Another Government Argument to Extend CDA Statute of Limitations

CFC Rejects Yet Another Government Argument to Extend CDA Statute of Limitations

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.15.12

In yet another recent CDA statute of limitations decision, the Court of Federal Claims in Raytheon Company v. United States (July 26, 2012) denied the government's motion for reconsideration of its April 2012 decision holding that the CO's final decision was barred by the six-year SOL. In its motion, the government argued that it was entitled by FAR 31.201-2 to complete an audit before the SOL could begin to run, but the CFC rejected that argument, holding that "the statute of limitations begins to run when information that equates to knowledge of a potential claim becomes available to the Government" and that under this standard the government was "on notice" of a potential claim against the contractor based on information it obtained when it entered into an advance agreement with Raytheon in 1999 about the costs at issue.


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