1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Ninth Circuit Narrows Qualifications for Being Qui Tam "Original Source"

Ninth Circuit Narrows Qualifications for Being Qui Tam "Original Source"

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.04.14

The Ninth Circuit, in Malhotra v. Steinberg (Oct. 29, 2014), held that, despite tipping off the government as to one kind of wrongdoing by the defendant, the FCA relators were not the "original source" of a different alleged act of wrongdoing perpetrated by the same defendant, a bankruptcy trustee. The relators independently discovered and alerted federal authorities to defendant trustee's scheme to sell property at a price lower than fair market value, but because that federal investigation led to the public disclosure of the defendant's receipt of kickbacks from those sales, the court held that the relators were not the original source of the kickback allegation which formed the basis of their qui tam action.


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