Justia Government Contracts Opinion Summaries

Petitioner served 26 years in the U.S. Army. Following his discharge, he began working in a civil service position as a maintenance management specialist for the Department of the Navy. His appointment was subject to completion of a one-year probationary period. Petitioner had no previous federal civilian service. Before expiration of the probationary period, the agency notified petitioner that he would be terminated from his position for unacceptable performance. He sought to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The administrative judge found that petitioner had no statutory right of appeal to the Board and that, as a probationary employee, petitioner's rights before the Board were limited to those defined by OPM regulations allowing appeal only if the termination was based on partisan political reasons or was the result of discrimination based on marital status, 5 C.F.R. 315.806(b). The Board rejected petitioner's claim that his military service should count toward completion of the one-year period of continuous service needed to qualify for Board review. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that petitioner did not qualify as an employee within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(A). View "Wilder v. Merit Systems Protection Board" on Justia Law

The city accepted a proposal to develop city-owned property. The developer formed companies to develop and own the affordable housing portion of the project. The city gave the developer an option to purchase the property under certain conditions. The developer failed to meet a condition that it obtain a demolition permit by a specific date. The city terminated the agreement. The developer alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601, and state laws, claiming that the city knew or should have known that the condition was impossible to meet and actually terminated the agreement because the project would accommodate handicapped tenants. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The facts alleged do not plausibly support findings: that the city designed the agreement to fail by including a condition it should have known that plaintiffs, sophisticated developers, could not meet; that the city did not want to house the handicapped; or that termination caused handicapped individuals to suffer disproportionately more than others. View "HDC, LLC v. City of Ann Arbor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered into a "Stipulation Agreement Regarding Damages," approved by the EEOC, to resolve her Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim against the U.S. Postal Service. She later filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging breached of that Agreement. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction because the Agreement was a consent decree, not a contract. In the federal system, when the United States is the defendant, whether the issue is enforcement of a court decree by the issuing forum or enforcement of a settlement contract in a separate suit determines which court can hear the case. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that the "dispute is yet another example of the wastefulness of litigation over where to litigate." Consent decrees and settlement agreements are not necessarily mutually exclusive; a settlement agreement, even one embodied in a decree, is a contract within the meaning of the Tucker Act. View "VanDesande v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant accepted $1,000 and Mets tickets for helping a consulting company obtain a contract with the county for temporary employment of individuals for clean-up after a 2006 flood. He pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(B). The presentence report recommended a sentence of 15 to 21 months' imprisonment. USSG 2C1.2(a)(1) set the base offense level at 11; the report added two levels under 2C1.2(b)(1) because the offense involved more than one gratuity and four levels under 2C1.2(b)(3) because the offense involved a public official in a high-level decision-making or sensitive position. It subtracted three levels for acceptance of responsibility (3E1.1). The district court imposed a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed. Defendant could not hire or fire; could not bind the county; could not act officially on the county's behalf; had administrative, not policymaking, duties; and reported to superiors, who reported to County Commissioners. The high-level government official enhancement was not applied to his superior, also implicated in the bribery scheme. Defendant was, however, responsible for the human resource department. View "United States v. Richards" on Justia Law

Zoltek’s patent, "Controlled Surface Electrical Resistance Carbon Fiber Sheet Product" concerns manufacturing carbon fiber sheets with controlled surface electrical resistivity. The filters were used in F-22 fighter jets, which Lockheed designed and built under government contract. Zoltek claimed infringement in a 1996 suit against the U.S. under 28 U.S.C. 1498(c). The Federal Circuit held that the statute did not waive sovereign immunity because the manufacturing process began in a foreign country and that Zoltek could not allege patent infringement as a taking under the Tucker Act. On remand, the court allowed Zoltek to add a claim against Lockheed under 35 U.S.C. 271(g) and transfer the case. The Federal Circuit court reconsidered its earlier decision and concluded that suit against the government is not barred and that 1498(c) does not apply to this case because the infringement was based on activities in the U.S. An independent cause of action is available under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a) for direct infringement by the government or its contractors that is not dependent on 35 U.S.C. 271(a). When the government is subject to suit under 1498(a) for alleged infringement by a contractor, the contractor is immune from individual liability. View "Zoltek Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

In this case, a subcontractor to a subcontractor to a prime contractor with a federal agency brought a procedural due process claim against that agency and tort actions against a separate contractor for allegedly causing the termination of his at-will consulting agreement. The court concluded that plaintiff's case involved both the wrong defendants and the wrong claims. Because permitting these claims to go forward would reward artful pleading and impermissibly constitutionalize state tort law, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Shrivinski v. United States Coast Guard, et al." on Justia Law

Landlords Moving brought civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 against defendants. Landlords Moving alleged that deputy sheriffs executed an illegal kickback scheme in which they funneled eviction business to private moving companies in exchange for cash payments. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim against all three defendants and entered a final judgment under Rule 54(b). Landlords Moving appealed. The court reversed the dismissal of Landlords Moving's claim against defendant Laurie Main for alleged violations of Landlords Moving's rights under the First Amendment; reversed the dismissal of Landlords Moving's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to that claim; and affirmed the dismissal of all other claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "L.L. Nelson Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. County of St. Louis, Missouri, et al." on Justia Law

During World War II, the U.S. contracted with oil companies for the production of aviation fuel, which resulted in production of hazardous waste. The waste was dumped at the California McColl site. Several decades later, the oil companies were held liable for cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601, and sought reimbursement from the government based on the contracts. The district court entered summary judgment on liability, finding that the contracts contained open ended indemnification agreements and encompassed costs for CERLCA cleanup, and awarded $87,344,345.70. The trial judge subsequently discovered that his wife had inherited 97.59 shares of stock in a parent to two of the oil companies. The judge ultimately vacated his summary judgment rulings; severed two companies from the suit and directed the clerk to reassign their claims to a different judge; reinstated his prior decisions with respect to two remaining companies; and entered judgment against the government ($68,849,505). The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for reassignment to another judge. The judge was required to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4) and the error was not harmless.View "Shell Oil Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

The company has been under contract with the U.S. Army’s Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Fund since 1993 to build and operate a hotel at a military base on Oahu. With 18 years remaining on the agreement, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals determined that the Fund breached the core of the contract and the parties entered the damages phase of the dispute. The company filed a separate complaint alleging that the Fund had done nothing to cure its ongoing breach. The ASBCA dismissed the second complaint as duplicative. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the company voluntarily waived its right to appeal to the court under its negotiated contract with the Fund. View "Minesen Co. v. McHugh" on Justia Law

Following published stories about an investigation of their business practices, principals of a waste-management company improved their chances of winning a bid for a contract to refurbish garbage carts for the City of Chicago by slashing their bid. They encouraged other companies to bid in hopes of being hired as a subcontractor if another company won the bid. Each bidder had to certify that it had not entered into any agreement with any other bidder or prospective bidder relating to the price, nor any agreement restraining free competition among bidders. The company won the bid, and after a Justice Department investigation for antitrust violations, the principals were convicted of mail and wire fraud. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that the purpose of "colluding" with other potential bidders had not been to prevent them from underbidding but to provide insurance against the bid being rejected based on the earlier investigation. There was no harm as a result of the company encouraging additional bidders. View "United States v. Fenzl" on Justia Law