1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Fourth Circuit Rules In Custer Battles

Fourth Circuit Rules In Custer Battles

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.13.09

The Fourth Circuit in United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC (4th Cir. April 10, 2009), affirmed summary judgment in the contractor's favor in a qui tam case alleging that Custer Battles (represented by C&M) had fraudulently induced the Coalition Provisional Authority to issue it a contract worth $17 million for security services at the Baghdad International Airport, agreeing "with the district court that the relators have not presented evidence sufficient to support a finding that Custer Battles violated the False Claims Act …." However, the Fourth Circuit also reversed judgment as a matter of law in favor of Custer Battles related to another contract Custer Battles had with the CPA for support services for the Dinar Exchange Program and remanded for further proceedings based on its findings that the district court erred in limiting the relators' claims to $3 million by using a "source-of-funds" analysis and in its presentment analysis under sections 3729 (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the FCA, including its holding that presentment must be proven under sections 3729 (a)(2) of the FCA, as the Supreme Court found to the contrary in Allison Engine while the case was on appeal.

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