BLOG: Use It Or Lose It - U.S. Supreme Court Holds Employers Who Wait Too Long to Raise EEOC Claim Objection to Title VII Discrimination Lawsuit May Forfeit Objection

June 14, 2019
By Anthony M. Batt
Recently, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a jurisdictional question: If a plaintiff fails to exhaust her remedies by first filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") claim, is she jurisdictionally barred from suing her employer for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII")? In typical lawyerly fashion, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between "mandatory" and "jurisdictional" and answered with an "it depends." This blog addresses the importance of employers raising objections early when defending a case to avoid losing time and money.
[READ MORE]

BLOG: What Will Happen to the DoD's Mentor-Protégé Program?

June 11, 2019
By Emily J. Rouleau
As many of our clients know, there are several mentor-protégé programs run either by the SBA or specific agencies that are intended to help small businesses develop and enhance their ability to serve as a prime contractor or subcontractor in federal contracts. For example, the SBA has the 8(a) mentor-protégé program and the all-small mentor-protégé program, and it also approves agency mentor-protégé programs, such as the Department of Homeland Security's program, which is designed to help small businesses obtain and perform subcontracts under agency prime contracts.
[READ MORE]

BLOG: Halting Employee's Right to Report Cybersecurity Noncompliance Can Land Government Contractors in Hot Water

May 28, 2019
By Sarah L. Nash
Last week signaled a potential rude awakening for government contractors subject to cybersecurity requirements. A California U.S. district court ruled that allegations against Aerojet Rocketdyne could progress following a former employee's complaint that the company terminated his employment after he disclosed cybersecurity failures to the company's board of directors and refused to sign documents indicating that the company was compliant. Among the employee's chief allegations is a charge that the company violated the False Claims Act by falsely representing its level of compliance with applicable cybersecurity standards so it could appear eligible for certain federal government contract awards.
[READ MORE]

BLOG: Corporate Transactions and Affiliation Pitfalls

May 28, 2019
By Francis G. Massaro
As a small business grows and expands, it may have opportunities to bring on new investors, provide equity incentives to obtain, incentivize and retain key employees and directors, and enter into acquisitions and other transactions with other entities.
[READ MORE]

BLOG: Challenging a Negative CPARS: What Remedies Are Available?

May 22, 2019
By Samuel S. Finnerty
As any experienced government contractor knows, poor performance under a federal contract can have significant consequences. Not only can it lead to contract termination and damages, but it can also affect a contractor's ability to obtain future work, as agencies are generally required to consider past performance information posted on the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System ("CPARS") when making source selection decisions. Because a CPARS rating is generally valid for 3 years (6 years for construction/architect-engineer contracts), a contractor may be inclined to challenge a negative CPARS if it believes it has been unfairly evaluated. As outlined below, there are a number of ways this can be done. However, the specific remedies available when challenging a negative CPARS will depend largely on the venue/juncture at which relief is obtained.
[READ MORE]
Please fill following information to download presentation