1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |D.C. Circuit Loosens Public Disclosure Bar While Tightening the Reins on Damages

D.C. Circuit Loosens Public Disclosure Bar While Tightening the Reins on Damages

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.16.12

In United States ex rel. Davis v. District of Columbia (May 15, 2011), the D.C. Circuit held that recent Supreme Court precedent had abrogated the Circuit's long-standing rule that a relator must provide the government with the information upon which his allegations are based not only before filing an action, but also prior to any public disclosure. The Circuit Court also applied its recent holding in U.S. v. Science Applications Corp., 626 F.3d 1257, that proof of damages requires a showing that, as the result of the alleged fraud, the value of what the government received was less than what it believed it had purchased, finding that, in the matter before it, because there was no allegation that claimed reimbursements were for services not actually received or of inflated value -- only that they lacked documentary support -- "the government got what it paid for and there are no damages."

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