The Dockworkers’ Strike and Safeguarding Your Rights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.03.24
At midnight on October 1, 2024, the International Longshoremen’s Association launched a labor strike that effectively shut down all ports from Maine to Texas after being unable to reach agreement on terms for a new labor contract with the United States Maritime Alliance. This strike may impact virtually all industries that rely on maritime shipping, either directly or indirectly.
Government contractors should be cognizant of their rights since shipping delays resulting from the strike could affect their performance. If a contract incorporates FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays, or one of the FAR Default clauses, such as FAR 52.249-8, Default (Fixed-Price Supply and Service), then delays that are attributable to the dockworkers’ strike should be excusable, and contract performance times extended. However, if the delay is attributable to a subcontractor whose performance is impacted by the dockworkers’ strike, then a prime contractor may need to consider the possibility of procuring supplies from an alternative supplier. Contractors should use their best efforts to timely notify their respective contracting officers of any performance impacts and request additional time to perform, as well as document any directions they receive from the contracting officer.
The FAR’s Excusable Delay clause and the Default clauses do not address monetary relief for excusable delays. However, certain circumstances may change the calculus, such as where the government does not grant extensions when appropriate, or when certain warranties made by the government were breached as a result of the strike. Thus, it is important to provide notice to the government in the event of delays caused by the strike, and it is worthwhile in any notice of impact to the government to reserve the right to seek an equitable adjustment for cost and schedule impacts, as applicable.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
