Skip to main content

No. 24-924October Term 2025Decided Apr 22, 2026

Docket 24-924October Term 2025 (2025–2026)

Winston Tyler Hencely, Petitioner v. Fluor Corporation, et al.

The Court is considering a dispute over employee benefits and ERISA requirements.

Case status

Current stage
Decided
Latest event
Decision released Apr 22, 2026
Case Accepted
Arguments HeardNov 3, 2025
Decision ReleasedApr 22, 2026
What it's about

The Court is considering a dispute over employee benefits and ERISA requirements. The case examines whether a corporation properly administered its employee benefit plan.

Question presented

Does Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, which immunized government contractors from liability under certain circumstances, extend to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?

Case path

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit / Decision released Apr 22, 2026

Area

Business and Regulation

Decision

Decision record

What the Court decided

This case came from a bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan involving a Fluor employee. Hencely sued Fluor under South Carolina tort law (law on civil wrongs causing injury). The Court held state-law claims can proceed if the government did not order or authorize the conduct.

Impact

People injured by military contractors may keep using state tort law (injury law) in some cases. For example, Hencely’s negligence claims against Fluor can proceed if the government did not order that conduct. Next, more suits may test whether contractors followed military instructions or exceeded their authority. Congress could still grant broader immunity (protection from being sued), but no specific law did here.

Not official Court text.