Job Corps Centers: Widespread Contract Terminations due to Agency’s “Pause”
What You Need to Know
Key takeaway #1
DOL’s decision to close approximately 100 Job Corps centers and terminate for convenience Job Corps contracts has the potential to adversely impact government contractors running those sites.
Key takeaway #2
Contractors facing a termination should consult with counsel experienced in the preparation of settlement proposals to ensure they are not “leaving money on the table.” Generally, the costs of these legal services are reimbursable by the government in connection with the final settlement.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.02.25
On May 29, 2025, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that it will begin a “phased pause in operations at contractor-operated Job Corps centers nationwide.” The pause is anticipated to occur within a month—by June 30, 2025. To effectuate this pause, DOL has suspended operations at approximately one hundred contractor-operated Job Corps centers. DOL instructed centers to suspend program activities, transition students home, and implement other transition plans. According to DOL’s Frequently Asked Questions, the Department anticipates that students will transition to “state and local workforce partners” including American Job Centers and the Labor Exchange system in their home state.
In addition, contracts for the operation of Job Corps centers will be terminated for convenience. Contractors generally have one year in which to submit their settlement proposals seeking reimbursement of expenses associated with the termination. Contractors should be aware that there are many types of potentially recoverable costs, including lawyer fees incurred in preparing the settlement proposal, in-house time spent, ongoing leases/licenses or early termination costs from ending leases/licenses, upfront costs incurred that were spread (amortized) into monthly prices, storage costs, and certain pre-award costs.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
FinCEN Delays Implementation Date and Reopens AML/CFT Rule for Investment Advisers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
Series of Major Data Breaches Targeting the Insurance Industry
Client Alert | 11 min read | 08.06.25