Updated 5 p.m. PST

Oracle America Inc. argues the U.S. Labor Department's attempt to expand the scope of workplace discrimination claims shows either the original case was “doomed to fail” or that regulators hoped widespread publication of unflattering statements would exert pressure on the tech company.

The Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe lawyers representing Oracle told an administrative law judge Tuesday that the Labor Department's recent push to bring new claims was made in “bad faith” and that the government should be barred from amending its complaint alleging pay discrimination.

The Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs “seeks to try this case in the press as a means of exerting pressure on Oracle,” Orrick partner Erin Connell and senior counsel Gary Siniscalco said in their new filing.

The attorneys also suggested the Labor Department was working “in coordination with plaintiffs' counsel prosecuting a civil action against Oracle that those plaintiffs admit piggy-backs on OFCCP's claims, and with whom OFCCP entered into a secret oral agreement to share information and work together.”

A spokesperson for the Labor Department declined to comment.

The Labor Department's dispute with Oracle dates to 2014, when the agency, which enforces federal civil rights laws for federal contractors, conducted a workplace compliance audit. Oracle receives roughly $100 million a year in government contractors, according to the Labor Department. Contractors are audited to ensure compliance with civil rights laws—and a contractor can lose current and future contracts based on any violations.

The Labor Department sued Oracle at the end of the Obama administration, and the agency recently sought court approval to file an amended complaint. The agency said it wanted to allege new claims Oracle systemically discriminates against women and minorities, resulting in the loss of up to $400 million in wages.

The Labor Department also indicated the new complaint would target Oracle's alleged use of prior pay to set salary levels, certain promotion practices and campus recruiting tactics.

Oracle denies the company discriminates against women and minorities and has claimed the Labor Department's analysis was faulty.

The Orrick lawyers alleged the Labor Department was required to undertake a conciliation process with Oracle before bringing any new claims. Labor Department lawyers argued the additional claims were either refinements of earlier claims or not new at all.

A separate civil case against Oracle is pending in California state court. The plaintiffs lawyers in that case are pushing for class certification on behalf of 4,000 women pursuing gender discrimination claims.

The plaintiffs alleged women make as much as $13,000 less on average than their male counterparts and receive smaller bonus and stock packages. The lawsuit does not target minority workers.

Erin Pulaski, a partner at Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe in San Francisco representing plaintiffs suing Oracle, disputed Oracle's assertion of any secret agreement between the Labor Department and plaintiffs attorneys.

“Two separate entities have now performed extensive compensation analyses that have found significant wage discrimination at Oracle,” Pulaski said. “Instead of addressing this grave problem, Oracle has chosen to lash out unfairly at the motives of the OFCCP.”

The common interest agreement between the plaintiffs and the Labor Department “is entirely appropriate in a situation where two separate entities are pursuing similar claims against a defendant,” Pulaski said.

Oracle's new filing is posted below: