dod assignment of claims

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

31 U.S. Code § 3727 - Assignments of claims

In subsection (a)(1), the words “or share thereof” and “whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor” are omitted as surplus. In clause (2), the word “authorization” is substituted for “powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities” to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsections (b) and (c), the word “official” is substituted for “officer” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

In subsection (b), the words “Except as hereinafter provided” are omitted as unnecessary. The words “read and” are omitted as surplus. The words “to the person acknowledging the same” are omitted as unnecessary. The text of 31:203(1st par. last sentence) is omitted as superseded by 39:410. The words “Notwithstanding any law to the contrary governing the validity of assignments ” and the text of 31:203(last par.) are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (c), before clause (1), the words “bank, trust company, or other . . . including any Federal lending agency” are omitted as surplus. The words “of money due or to become due under a contract providing for payments totaling at least $1,000” are substituted for “in any case in which the moneys due or to become due from the United States or from any agency or department thereof, under a contract providing for payments aggregating $1,000 or more” to eliminate unnecessary words. The text of 31:203(2d par. proviso cl. 1) is omitted as executed. In clause (1), the words “in the case of any contract entered into after October 9, 1940 ” are omitted as executed. In clause (2)(A), the words “payable under such contract” are omitted as surplus. In clause (3), the words “true” and “instrument of” are omitted as surplus. The words “department or” are omitted because of the restatement. The words “if any” and “to make payment” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (d), before clause (1), the words “During a war or national emergency proclaimed by the President or declared by law and ended by proclamation or law” are substituted for “in time of war or national emergency proclaimed by the President (including the national emergency proclaimed December 16, 1950 ) or by Act or joint resolution of the Congress and until such war or national emergency has been terminated in such manner” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “ Department of Energy (when carrying out duties and powers formerly carried out by the Atomic Energy Commission)” are substituted for “Atomic Energy Commission” (which was reconstituted as the Energy Research and Development Administration by 42:5813 and 5814) because of 42:7151(a) and 7293. The words “other department or . . . of the United States . . . except any such contract under which full payment has been made” and “of any moneys due or to become due under such contract” before “shall not be subject” are omitted as surplus. The words “A payment subsequently due under the contract (even after the war or emergency is ended) shall be paid to the assignee without” are substituted for “and if such provision or one to the same general effect has been at any time heretofore or is hereafter included or inserted in any such contract, payments to be made thereafter to an assignee of any moneys due or to become due under such contract, whether during or after such war or emergency . . . hereafter” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “of any nature” are omitted as surplus. In clause (1), the words “or any department or agency thereof” are omitted as unnecessary. In clause (2), the words “under any renegotiation statute or under any statutory renegotiation article in the contract” are omitted as surplus.

Subsection (e)(1) is substituted for 31:203(4th par.) to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (e)(2), the words “person receiving an amount under an assignment or allotment” are substituted for “assignees, transferees, or allottees” for clarity and consistency. The words “or to others for them” and “with respect to such assignments , transfers, or allotments or the use of such moneys” are omitted as surplus. The words “person making the assignment or allotment” are substituted for “assignors, transferors, or allotters” for clarity and consistency.

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The Supreme Court opens the door to more discrimination claims involving job transfers

Nina Totenberg

A view of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26. Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Women's March hide caption

A view of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday made it easier for workers to bring employment discrimination suits over job transfers based on sex, race, religion or national origin.

At issue was a question that has produced many conflicting decisions in the lower courts over what constitutes illegal discrimination when it comes to job transfers.

The high court's answer Wednesday was that an employee must show some harm, but need not demonstrate harm that is "significant" or "material."

The case before the court was illustrative. It was brought by Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a police sergeant who claimed she was transferred from her job as a plainclothes police officer in the intelligence section of the St. Louis Police Department because she is a woman. Muldrow worked in the Intelligence Division from 2008 to 2017 investigating public corruption and human trafficking cases. She also oversaw the Gang Unit, served as head of the Gun Crimes Unit, and was assigned as a task force officer with the FBI.

Despite high employment evaluations, a new unit commander engineered her transfer out of the Intelligence Division. Among other things, he justified the transfer by noting that the division's work was "very dangerous." Over her objections, Muldrow was reassigned to a uniformed job in the department's Fifth District, where she supervised the activities of neighborhood patrol officers — approving arrests, reviewing reports and handling other administrative matters.

Though her pay and rank remained the same, Muldrow sued the police department, asserting that she had been harmed by the transfer. Because she was no longer in the Intelligence Division, she lost her FBI status and the car that came with it, and in the new job Muldrow often had to work nights and weekends, instead of the Monday-through-Friday workweek she had worked in the intelligence unit.

Supreme Court gives skeptical eye to key statute used to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters

A federal district court judge ruled in favor of the police department, without a trial, and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Muldrow's transfer, declaring that because she could show no "diminution to her title, salary, or benefits," her claims of discrimination were not "significant."

But on Wednesday the Supreme Court reversed that ruling and laid out a more stringent test for lower courts to use in determining whether a discrimination claim based on altered conditions of employment can proceed to trial.

The decision was unanimous , but the reasoning was not.

Writing for the six-member majority, Justice Elena Kagan said that the federal law banning discrimination in employment includes a ban not just on economic discrimination; it includes a ban on discrimination in the "terms" and "conditions" of employment." Kagan said that covers a transfer that changed "nothing less than the what, where, and when of [Muldrow's] police work."

While the 8th Circuit and some other courts have required that such discrimination claims show "significant" or "material" harm, the Supreme Court said that is too high a bar. The anti-discrimination statute "targets practices that 'treat a person worse' " because of their sex, race, religion or national origin, the court said.

Explaining why this higher threshold is necessary, Kagan said that "whether the harm is significant" turns out to be "in the eye of the beholder." And to prove the point she cited examples that lower courts have held to be not significant:

• an engineering technician is assigned to a new job site — in a 14-by-22- foot wind tunnel;
• a shipping worker is transferred to a position involving only nighttime work;
• and a school principal is transferred to a non-school-based administrative role supervising fewer employees.

In each of those sex or race discrimination cases, the lower courts found that there was no "significant" harm to conditions of employment.

That, however, is "the wrong standard," Kagan explained. Rather, if an employee can show some harm because of sex, race, religion or national origin, that is enough. "Had Congress wanted to limit the liability for job transfers to those causing a significant disadvantage, it could have done so," wrote Kagan, adding that the court "does not get to make that judgment" by rewriting the statute.

Three justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh — wrote opinions concurring with the result but not the reasoning.

Alito's was the most extraordinary. "I do not join the Court's unhelpful opinion," he wrote, adding of its reasoning: "I have no idea what this means."

Justice Thomas picked some legal nits with the majority opinion, but in the end, acknowledged that it is "unlikely" the 8th Circuit had a "stringent" enough standard in mind.

And Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he favored a different and less complicated approach. If a job transfer is based on sex, race, religion or national origin, it is discriminatory, period, whether or not it causes some concrete harm. That said, he acknowledged the court's "new some-harm requirement appears to be a relatively low bar" that ought to be easily met for anyone transferred based on their sex, race, religion or national origin.

Part Number: 3053

Homeland Security Acquisition Regulations

Part 3053—forms.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301–302, 41 U.S.C. 1303, 41 U.S.C. 1707, 41 U.S.C. 1702, and 48 CFR subpart 1.3.

Source: 68 FR 67871, Dec. 4, 2003, unless otherwise noted.

Subpart 3053.1—General

3053.101 requirements for use of forms., 3053.103 exceptions., subpart 3053.2—prescription of forms, 3053.204-70 administrative matters., 3053.222-70 application of labor laws to government acquisitions., 3053.227-70 conveyance of invention rights acquired by the government., 3053.245-70 [reserved], subpart 3053.3—illustrations of forms, 3053.303 agency forms..

Unless excepted, forms prescribed in (FAR) 48 CFR part 53 and (HSAR) 48 CFR part 3053 are required for use by all Components.

Requests for exceptions to forms contained in (FAR) 48 CFR part 53 and to DHS forms in (HSAR) 48 CFR part 3053 shall be submitted, as prescribed in (FAR) 48 CFR 53.103, to the CPO.

The following forms are prescribed for use in the closeout of applicable contracts, as specified in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3004.804–570:

(a) DHS Form 700–1, Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation Statement. (See (HSAR) 48 CFR 3004.804–570(a)(3).)

(b) DHS Form 700–2, Contractor's Assignment of Refunds, Rebates, Credits and Other Amounts. (See (HSAR) 48 CFR 3004.804–570(a)(2).)

(c) DHS Form 700–3, Contractor Release. (See (HSAR) 48 CFR 3004.804–570(a)(1).)

The following form is prescribed for use in connection with the application of labor laws, as specified in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3022.406–9: DHS Form 700–4, Employee's Claim for Wage Restitution.

The following form is prescribed for including a means for contractors to report inventions made in the course of contract performance, as specified in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3027.305–4: DD Form 882, Report of Inventions and Subcontracts.

This section illustrates agency-specified forms. To access the DHS forms go to https://www.dhs.gov/publication/acquisition-forms.

• Data Initiatives
• Regulations
• Smart Matrix
• Regulations Search
• Acquisition Regulation Comparator (ARC)
• Large Agencies
• Small Agencies
• CAOC History
• CAOC Charter
• Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC)
• Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
• Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC)

ACQUISITION.GOV

An official website of the General Services Administration