Whistleblower Rebuffs Counterclaim for Disclosing Confidential Information
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.20.16
In U.S. ex rel. Cieszynski v. LifeWatch Servs. (N.D. Ill., May 9), the court dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim against a former employee and FCA whistleblower, ruling that the whistleblower’s disclosure of protected patient information fell within the public policy protections for whistleblowers. As described in a post on the Whistleblower Watch Blog, there has been an increase in recent years of FCA defendants raising counterclaims based on breaches of confidentiality agreements, and this will likely remain an active area of litigation until the courts clearly define what documents an FCA whistleblower can take from an employer and how the whistleblower can use those documents to support FCA allegations.
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
