1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Just When You Thought It Was Over: Eleventh Circuit Deepens Disagreement on FCA's Tolling Provision

Just When You Thought It Was Over: Eleventh Circuit Deepens Disagreement on FCA's Tolling Provision

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.13.18

In U.S. ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy Inc., the Eleventh Circuit held that a relator in a non-intervened qui tam action may rely on the FCA’s tolling provision in 31 U.SC. § 3731(b)(2), which expands the 6-year statute of limitations to allow suits to be brought within 3 years of the date that the relevant government official learns of the alleged violation. In so holding, the court disagreed with already divergent views from the Fourth, Tenth, and Ninth Circuits, increasing the depth of the circuit split on this issue. C&M attorneys discuss the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and its potential impact in a recent post for Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum.

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].”...