1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Federal Circuit Extends 'Good Faith' Shield of Agencies

Federal Circuit Extends 'Good Faith' Shield of Agencies

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.12.13

In Croman Corp. v. U.S. (July  31, 2013), the Federal Circuit upheld the reasonableness of an agency's corrective action after expanding the protestor's argument into a "bad faith" allegation. When the protestor complained that the cancellation of several CLINs was without a rational basis and put forward evidence that indicated the agency's rationale was pretextual, instead of requiring the agency to put forward proof to support its stated rationale, the court relabeled the challenge as a "bad faith" allegation, which it held the protestor had not shown by clear and convincing evidence.


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].”...