Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶32

The contract at issue in this case is “like the one for the hypothetical air conditioner, not the helicopter.” Saleh, 580 F. 3d, at 22 (Garland, J., dissenting). The Fourth Circuit did not conclude “that the government required or authorized the contractor personnel at [Bagram Airfeld] to do what state law forbids,” and Boyle cannot be read to “protect a contractor from liability resulting from the contractor's violation of federal . . . policy.” 580 F. 3d, at 22–23. The Government required Fluor to hire Afghan employees and to provide logistics for Bagram Airfeld. But, it did not, Hencely contends, require Fluor to leave Nayeb unsupervised, allow him to walk alone for an hour after his shift, or permit him to obtain unauthorized tools with which he could build a bomb. Instead, on each score, the Army concluded that Fluor failed express duties to the Government. Given this, Hencely's…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.