DOD Required to Reimburse Pension Cost Deficit
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.18.12
In Raytheon Co. v. U.S. (July 16, 2012), the Court of Federal Claims awarded Raytheon $59.2 million for the "segment closing adjustment" required by CAS 413 to cover unreimbursed pension costs in two business units sold by Raytheon in 2001 and 2002, finding on virtually every contested issue that the calculation of Raytheon's expert actuarial witness was reasonable and that the government's expert had not carried the burden of proving that the Raytheon calculations were noncompliant with CAS. In addition, effectively reversing a prior decision in Raytheon Co. v. U.S., 96 Fed. Cl. 548 (2011), and addressing an issue that will have potentially broader implications beyond CAS 413 segment closing cases, the court found that Raytheon's agreement to the standard form novation language under which the seller "waives" all claims against the Government on novated contracts did not result in a waiver of the CAS 413 segment closing claim on several grounds.
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
