Fraud Or Indiscretion? It Depends Who You Are
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.08.09
In the previously reported case of Daewoo Eng'g and Constr. Co. v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2009), a contractor inflating its claim as a "negotiating ploy" committed "fraud" and was subject to substantial fines and forfeitures, but in the recent case of Bell BCI Co. v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2009), the government's assessment of liquidated damages to create "negotiating leverage" to counter the contractor's changes claims received only passing mention from the Court. Bell BCI also provides a caution about releases included with bilateral modifications - releasing "any and all liability for further equitable adjustment attributable to the modification" waived not only claims for direct costs of the changed work, but also claims for delay and disruption occasioned by the changed work, including in any "cumulative changes" claims.
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
