Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶33
None of this should come as a surprise to Fluor under existing statutes and regulations. “Congress knows full well how to make its intention to preclude private liability known.” Saleh, 580 F. 3d, at 26 (Garland, J., dissenting). Congress gave some contractors express protection from suits related to their activities. 42 U. S. C. §§ 233(a), (g) (channeling suits against employees at certain federally funded health centers); 50 U. S. C. § 2783(b) (providing the same for contractors carrying out an atomic weapons testing program). And, in the Defense Base Act, Congress channeled claims by contractors' employees to an administrative process, see 42 U. S. C. §§ 1651(a), (c), but did not do the same for suits by soldiers on military bases. Moreover, the Government advised Fluor that it would not have a blanket defense based on its status as a military contractor. See Saleh, 580 F. 3d, at 27…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.