Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPREME COURT NEWS—Argument scheduled for November in suit over injured soldier’s claims against military contractor, (Aug 13, 2025)
Organizations Mentioned:Fluor Corp. | U.S. Army | U.S. Department of Defense
By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.
An Army Specialist was injured by a suicide bomber who had been working for a U.S. military contractor in Afghanistan.
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for November 3, 2025, in Hencely v. Fluor Corp., a case for which it granted the petition for certiorari in June, seeking to resolve a circuit split over the reach of Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), when contractors defend against state tort claims by invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2680(j).
Hencely, a former U.S. Army Specialist, was critically and permanently injured by a suicide bomber, who detonated an explosive vest while inside Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan in 2016. The bomber was employed by a Fluor Corporation subcontractor, which had a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense to provide support services at the base, including vehicle maintenance and hazardous materials management.
Primary contributing factor. An Army investigation found that the attack's primary contributing factor was the contractor's actions in breach of its Army contract and in violation of the military's instructions to supervise the employee-turned-bomber. The injured soldier sued the government contractor for negligence under South Carolina law—he did not sue the military under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Lawsuit and appeal. Below, the Fourth Circuit held that the soldier’s state claims were preempted by "federal interests" emanating from an FTCA exception. Invoking Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., it held that the FTCA's exception immunizing the government for "[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces ... during time of war," 28 U.S.C. § 2680(j), barred the employee’s state-law claims against the contractor.
Circuit split. The Fourth Circuit’s decision added to a circuit split between the Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits regarding Boyle's reach when contractors defend against state tort claims by invoking § 2680(j).
The petition asks whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the FTCA's combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?
The case is No. 21-1994.
News: SupremeCourtNews Procedure ContractClaims TortClaims CoverageLiability GovernmentContracts LitigationNewsTrends