Unfortunate Change To Settlement Fees And Costs Allowability Law
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.21.09
Reversing the ASBCA decision in Tecom, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 53884 et al., 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,674 (Sept. 21, 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holds in Geren v. Tecom, Inc., No. 2008-1171 (May 19, 2009), that legal fees and costs incurred in connection with settling a private action for employment discrimination unrelated to fraud will be allowable only if the contractor can establish that the private plaintiff had very little likelihood of success on the merits. This ruling, which will be discussed next week at Crowell & Moring's OOPS conference, will greatly complicate the determination of allowable costs and place the responsible government contracting officer in the difficult position of second-guessing each settlement decision.
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
