Speak Now Or Forever Hold Your Claims
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.28.19
The ASBCA in the reconsideration of Parsons Evergreene LLC, ASBCA No. 58634, stated that “the failure to argue alternative theories has consequences” and that it is not “the Board’s obligation to search the record for evidence of quantum to meet PE’s burden of proof.” In the entitlement and quantum decision on the Triarch issue, the Board held that while PE was entitled to recover the cost of applying Sherwin Williams paint, it could not determine the amount owed. In reconsideration, PE pointed the Board to documents in the record that would support a quantum calculation. The Board denied PE’s request stating that it would not grant reconsideration resulting from a new argument based on evidence in the record but not presented in PE’s post-hearing brief. Similarly, the Board denied PE’s request to reconsider its REA preparation claim because PE failed to present an argument or direct the Board to any evidence to support its claim that the REA preparation costs were incurred in furtherance of negotiations.
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
