DOJ Sets FCA Sights on Private-Sector Colleges
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.05.12
On August 30, the Justice Department intervened and filed an FCA complaint against ATI Enterprises, Inc., which operates private-sector colleges, alleging that ATI knowingly misrepresented its job placement statistics to maintain its state licensure and, thus, its eligibility for federal financial aid, knowingly enrolled under-qualified students, and fraudulently kept students enrolled despite insufficient attendance and poor grades. DOJ's announcement follows other recent high profile cases in the higher education arena, including US ex rel. Oberg v. Ky. Higher Educ. in June (in which the Fourth Circuit considered whether corporate entities created by states to provide higher education financing, accused of making false claims to DOE, were "persons" subject to FCA liability) and Cuccinelli v. Univ. of Va. in March (in which the Virginia Supreme Court held that UVA was not a "person" or "corporation" under the Virginia state-equivalent FCA).
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].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
