The Long Tail Of Government Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.26.04
In the latest in a series of appellate decision concerning the Government's liability to reimburse contractors under World War II cost-reimbursement contracts for their liability to clean up environmental contamination, the Federal Circuit in Ford Motor Co. v. U.S. (Aug. 10, 2004) has upheld the contractor's reservation of the right to recover costs that were first incurred nearly 50 years after the contract was completed and "settled." The Court's broad reading of a provision reserving the contractor's right to indemnification for "[c]laims of the Contractor against the Government which are based upon responsibility of the Contractor to Third parties . . . and which involve costs reimbursable under the Contract . . . but which are not now known to the Officers, Directors, or other personnel of the Contractor whose duties include the acquisition of such knowledge" and a definition of reimbursable costs that included "loss or destruction of or damage to property as may arise out of or in connection with the performance of the work under this contract" suggests that most World War II-era contractors facing liability for environmental remediation will be entitled to indemnification under contractual provisions that were then standard in closing out war contracts.
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
