1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Contractor Claims Forfeited Under Fraud Statutes

Contractor Claims Forfeited Under Fraud Statutes

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.06.14

The Federal Circuit in Veridyne Corp. (July 15, 2014) held that a contractor whose claims for payment were forfeited under the Special Plea in Fraud Statute (applicable when the contractor "knew that its submitted claims were false and . . . intended to defraud the government by submitting [its] claims") was not entitled to recovery even in quantum meruit for the value of work completed and accepted by the government. At the same time, the Federal Circuit upheld the imposition of False Claims Act penalties for each invoice submitted under a contract extension because the contractor's misleading proposal caused the extension to be "infected with fraud," and it upheld additional, CDA penalties for invoices found to be "unsupported."


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