Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative Claims Another DEI-Related FCA Settlement

By Brian Tully McLaughlin, Agustin D. Orozco, William Tucker, Alexandra Brooks & Amanda McDowell on September 8, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On Tuesday, August 25, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Deloitte LLP and several of its subsidiaries agreed to pay, collectively, $21.5 million to resolve allegations that Deloitte violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by failing to comply with new anti-discrimination requirements incorporated into its federal contracts, by discriminating against employees and applicants on the basis of race and sex, and by allocating and seeking reimbursement for costs related to those practices under its federal government contracts. This resolution is the second of its kind under DOJ’s recently launched Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, following a similar settlement by IBM in April 2026.

Link to The Deloitte Settlement The Deloitte Settlement

The settlement resolves allegations that, from 2017 to the present, Deloitte falsely certified compliance with equal opportunity and anti-discrimination requirements while engaging in discriminatory race- and sex-based employment practices. The government alleged that Deloitte allocated costs relating to these discriminatory practices to its federal government contracts and sought payment and reimbursement from the government for such costs. Specifically, the government alleged FCA violations based on four categories of conduct:

  • Taking race or sex into account when making hiring, promotion, and staffing decisions. Business units were allegedly assigned non-public race- and sex-based workforce composition goals, sometimes with attached financial incentives, which were described internally as “aggressive” and intended to “drive behavior change.”
  • Identifying promotion candidates by race and sex. DOJ claimed that Deloitte circulated spreadsheets that encouraged staff to “continue taking intentional action” to increase the number of Black, multiracial, and Hispanic/Latinx professionals promoted to the partner, principal, or managing director level.
  • Setting demographic goals for employees staffed to federal contracts. Deloitte allegedly provided a “Priority Staffing Report” that identified employees available for project staffing by race and sex to staffing managers as a “lever” to help Deloitte achieve parity between the percentages of underrepresented minorities and non-underrepresented Minorities, respectively, who were understaffed.
  • Offering training, mentoring, and leadership development programs with eligibility limited on the basis of race or sex. DOJ asserted that Deloitte’s “Springboard” and “Compass” programs were designed to boost participants’ career prospects through sponsorship and networking. Only employees who met certain race or sex criteria were eligible to participate.

As part of the settlement, the qui tam relator, the American Alliance for Equal Rights (the Alliance) will receive $4,300,000 of the total recovery amount and will confidentially disclose to Deloitte the identity of the former employee who provided information regarding Deloitte’s practices.

Notably, the Alliance also alleged state-level claims in Florida and Indiana, which were resolved via additional coordinated settlements for $1.2 million each, illustrating that these cases can create risk at both the state and federal levels.

Link to Lessons Regarding DEI Investigations and Enforcement Landscape Lessons Regarding DEI Investigations and Enforcement Landscape

  • DEI is a real and ongoing enforcement priority: The IBM and Deloitte settlements exemplify the significant exposure federal contractors may face if the administration deems their DEI practices to be unlawful. As has been publicly reported, multiple companies and institutions and their DEI programs are under investigation by DOJ pursuant to the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative. And in the press release announcing this settlement, Attorney General Todd Blanche emphasized “[t]he Justice Department will aggressively pursue government contractors that have used taxpayer dollars to fund unlawful discrimination.” The value and time period of both the IBM and Deloitte settlements, each extending years prior to the launch of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, speak to DOJ’s aggressive approach in this new FCA frontier.
  • A new breed of whistleblowers may drive FCA cases involving DEI allegations: This is the first resolution of a DEI-related FCA suit based on a whistleblower claim and is likely just a preview of what’s to come as individuals and organizations focused on opposing DEI measures find a new way to pursue their goals. The Alliance, the relator in this case, describes itself as “a nationwide membership organization that is dedicated to ending racial classifications and racial preferences in America,” and has filed dozens of other civil suits based on similar theories of discrimination. The qui tam suit was filed just a few months into the second Trump term and, notably, before the administration formally encouraged whistleblowers to come forward regarding alleged civil rights violations like those at issue in the Deloitte settlement. With significant potential financial recovery possible for relators to pursue civil rights objectives by leveraging the FCA — as shown by the Alliance’s $4.3 million share of the settlement amount — there is serious incentive for qui tam activity regarding allegedly unlawful DEI practices.
  • EO 14398 is creating tangible risk: Executive Order 14398 (EO 14398), “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors,” created a new mandatory contract clause requiring federal contractors, among other things, to refrain from engaging in “racially discriminatory DEI activities” and acknowledge that such compliance is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of FCA compliance. While some commentators have questioned whether EO 14398 could create real FCA liability by simply declaring that a violation of that clause was material to the government’s payment decisions, the Deloitte settlement demonstrates that even if the enforceability of such clauses has not been tested in a public case, they are a tool that the government and qui tam relators will seek to leverage. But risk isn’t limited to EO 14398.
  • Risk of FCA allegations extends beyond EO 14398: Shortly after the execution of EO 14398, contracting officers were instructed to replace the Equal Opportunity contract clause (FAR 52.222-26) with a new clause (FAR 52.222-90) to “address DEI discrimination by federal contractors.” However, just as with the IBM settlement, the Deloitte settlement agreement expressly resolves contentions that Deloitte’s practices violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 via FAR clause 52.222-26. Settlements like IBM’s and Deloitte’s shed light on how key clauses like this are being interpreted through a new lens in the current administration — and how that lens continues to evolve over time.
  • Cooperation and remediation credit remains available: Both Deloitte and IBM reportedly received credit under DOJ guidelines for disclosure, cooperation, and remediation as set forth in § 4-4.112 of the Justice Manual. This underscores the importance of proactive engagement with counsel where DEI program issues are identified. At the same time, these two settlements signal that DOJ is seeking large monetary damages in this space, particularly where it sees a connection between the alleged conduct and the receipt of government funds.

Crowell & Moring has been advising clients on the legality of their DEI programs considering these developments over the past 19 months and is available to counsel clients on compliance and responding to government investigations to mitigate risk of FCA liability.

Photo of Brian Tully McLaughlin Brian Tully McLaughlin

Brian Tully McLaughlin is a partner in the Government Contracts Group in Washington, D.C. and co-chair of the False Claims Act Practice. Tully’s practice focuses on False Claims Act investigations and litigation, particularly trial and appellate work, as well as litigation of a…

Brian Tully McLaughlin is a partner in the Government Contracts Group in Washington, D.C. and co-chair of the False Claims Act Practice. Tully’s practice focuses on False Claims Act investigations and litigation, particularly trial and appellate work, as well as litigation of a variety of complex claims, disputes, and recovery matters. Tully’s False Claims Act experience spans procurement fraud, healthcare fraud, defense industry fraud, and more. He conducts internal investigations and represents clients in government investigations who are facing fraud or False Claims Act allegations. Tully has successfully litigated False Claims Act cases through trial and appeal, both those brought by whistleblowers / qui tam relators and the Department of Justice alike. He also focuses on affirmative claims recovery matters, analyzing potential claims and changes, counseling clients, and representing government contractors, including subcontractors, in claims and disputes proceedings before administrative boards of contract appeals and the Court of Federal Claims, as well as in international arbitration. His claims recovery experience includes unprecedented damages and fee awards. Tully has appeared and tried cases before judges and juries in federal district courts, state courts, and administrative boards of contract appeals, and he has argued successful appeals before the D.C. Circuit, the Federal Circuit, and the Fourth and Seventh Circuits.

Read more about Brian Tully McLaughlinEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Agustin D. Orozco Agustin D. Orozco

Agustin D. Orozco is a partner in the Los Angeles office and is a member of the firm’s White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement and Government Contracts groups. As a former federal prosecutor, Agustin is a skilled trial lawyer focused on directing complex white…

Agustin D. Orozco is a partner in the Los Angeles office and is a member of the firm’s White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement and Government Contracts groups. As a former federal prosecutor, Agustin is a skilled trial lawyer focused on directing complex white collar cases and investigations, handling contentious and sophisticated pretrial litigation, and successfully proving highly difficult cases at trial. Agustin’s background as a federal prosecutor and government contracts attorney leaves him uniquely situated to help clients where government contracts and white collar intersect.

Agustin represents clients in criminal and civil government investigations and enforcement actions. He also represents and counsels clients on matters involving federal, state, and local government contracts. Agustin has litigated civil False Claims Act (FCA) matters and other government contracts issues, such as disputes, claims, and terminations. He is also experienced in matters involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), including conducting investigations abroad and counseling clients on compliance issues.

Read more about Agustin D. OrozcoEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of William Tucker William Tucker

Will Tucker is an associate in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Health Care and Government Contracts groups. Will represents clients in a range of complex litigation and counseling engagements. He helps clients navigate relationships with federal and state…

Will Tucker is an associate in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Health Care and Government Contracts groups. Will represents clients in a range of complex litigation and counseling engagements. He helps clients navigate relationships with federal and state regulators, often regarding the use of emerging technologies and implementation of new business models. His counseling practice covers fraud and abuse compliance, state licensure guidance, responding to federal audits, and state procurement procedures, among other issues. His litigation practice spans both plaintiff-side and defense work, including fraud, data rights, and insurance disputes in federal court, as well as bid protests before the Government Accountability Office.

Read more about William TuckerEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Alexandra Brooks Alexandra Brooks
Read more about Alexandra BrooksEmail
Photo of Amanda McDowell Amanda McDowell

Amanda H. McDowell is an associate in the Government Contracts and Health Care groups in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. Amanda represents contractors in litigation, regulatory, and counseling matters. Her practice focuses on False Claims Act litigation, government investigations, bid protests, and…

Amanda H. McDowell is an associate in the Government Contracts and Health Care groups in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. Amanda represents contractors in litigation, regulatory, and counseling matters. Her practice focuses on False Claims Act litigation, government investigations, bid protests, and state and federal regulatory compliance.

Read more about Amanda McDowellEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Corporate Governance and Compliance, Employment & Labor, Government Contracts
  • Blog:
    Government Contracts Legal Forum
  • Organization:
    Crowell & Moring LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo