"Yardstick" Measures Failure to Progress in A-12 Default Termination
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.11.07
In the latest opinion in the 16-year A-12 litigation, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, No. 91-1204C (Fed. Cl. May 3, 2007) the Court of Federal Claims, on remand from the Federal Circuit, upheld default termination of the fixed-price research and development contract based upon a failure to make progress -- even though the full contract "had no completion date at [the time of] termination." With no completion date for the full contract, the Court instead used a "yardstick" to measure the contractors' progress, holding that (1) the Court could use a series of interim deadlines for the production of prototype aircraft to define both the "performance required" and the "time remaining for performance"; and (2) at the time of termination, there was sufficient information available for the contracting officer to have concluded there was no reasonable likelihood of delivery under those deadlines (even if the contracting officer did not, in the event, make the default termination decision based upon that "available" information).
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
