Hencely v. Fluor Corporation

Overview

Hencely, a worker employed by Fluor Corporation at a federal government facility, brought a tort claim for injuries sustained on the job. The Supreme Court addressed whether the government contractor defense, which immunizes private contractors from state tort liability when their work complies with government specifications, applies in the employment context and whether it preempts Hencely's state law claims.

Facts

Fluor Corporation, a military contractor, hired Ahmad Nayeb to work at a U.S. base in Afghanistan as part of the 'Afghan First' program, which required contractors to hire Afghans. Nayeb was a Taliban operative. He carried out a suicide bomb attack that killed 5 soldiers and wounded 17, including Winston T. Hencely, who suffered a fractured skull and brain injuries. The Army investigation found Fluor primarily responsible for negligently supervising Nayeb. Hencely sued Fluor for negligent hiring and supervision under Wyoming tort law.

Issue

Whether the government contractor defense, established in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. for product liability claims, extends to personal injury claims by employees of federal contractors arising from workplace conditions at government facilities, and whether state tort liability for such claims is preempted by the federal government's authority to set the terms of its contractors' operations.

Rule

In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., the Supreme Court held that state tort law claims against government contractors are preempted when the government approved reasonably precise specifications, the equipment conformed to those specifications, and the contractor warned the government of any known dangers. The government contractor defense reflects the principle that imposing state liability on contractors for compliance with federal direction would conflict with the federal government's authority over its own procurement and operations.

Analysis

Military contractors are not federal agencies. They are private companies hired by the government to perform services. When a contractor hires a worker, that decision is the contractor's responsibility, not automatically blessed by the military. The Afghan First program told contractors to hire Afghans. It did not tell them to hire Taliban operatives or to negligently supervise them. When Fluor failed to vet Nayeb or monitor him, that failure was Fluor's negligence, not federal policy. The government can authorize risky conduct, but it has to be clear about it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit erred in finding Hencely's state-law tort claims preempted. The Federal Government did not order or authorize Fluor's negligent supervision of Ahmad Nayeb. State tort law applies to contractors' hiring and supervision decisions. Hencely's negligent supervision claim can proceed. The judgment was reversed and remanded for trial.

The decision protects injured parties' state-law remedies against military contractors. Contractors are not immune from tort liability simply because they work for the government. They must still meet basic standards of care in hiring and supervision.