1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |State University Hospital Fends Off FCA Claims Under "Arm-of-the-State" Test

State University Hospital Fends Off FCA Claims Under "Arm-of-the-State" Test

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.16.13

In U.S. ex rel. King v. The University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, a federal court considered whether The University of Texas Health Science Center–Houston was subject to liability under the qui tam provisions of the federal civil False Claims Act, based on a former employee's allegations that the hospital had defrauded the federal government by covering up misconduct related to federal research grants, and retaliated against the employee for reporting the misconduct. Applying the "arm-of-the-state" test (previously discussed here), the court held that the university hospital was a state entity -- and thus, was not a "person" subject to suit under the FCA -- and likewise held that employee's FCA retaliation claim was barred by sovereign immunity, providing a victory in the latest round of FCA scrutiny impacting higher ed institutions (discussed here and here).


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].”...

View All Insights