Governmental Immunities

In January 1970 respondent A. Ernest Fitzgerald lost his job as a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force when his position was eliminated during a departmental reorganization and reduction in force. One year earlier, on November 13, 1968, Fitzgerald had testified before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee that cost overruns on the C-5A transport plane could approximate $2 billion. Concerned that the dismissal might constitute retaliation for the congressional testimony, the subcommittee held public hearings. At a December 8, 1969 news conference President Richard Nixon promised to look into the matter and directed White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman to arrange for Fitzgerald's reassignment to another administration position. An internal White House memorandum from aide Alexander Butterfield recommended that Fitzgerald "bleed, for a while at least" because of perceived disloyalty, and no further White House efforts to reemploy him occurred. Fitzgerald complained to the Civil Service Commission alleging unlawful retaliation. The Examiner held that Fitzgerald's dismissal had offended applicable civil service regulations based on a finding that the departmental reorganization was motivated by reasons purely personal to respondent. The Examiner recommended Fitzgerald's reappointment to his old position or to a job of comparable authority. The Commission explicitly found that the evidence did not support Fitzgerald's allegation of retaliation for his 1968 testimony. At a January 31, 1973 news conference President Nixon stated that he had approved Fitzgerald's dismissal. A day later the White House press office issued a retraction of the President's statement. In 1978 Fitzgerald filed a second amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia naming Nixon as a defendant and alleging violations of the First Amendment and two federal statutes. The District Court denied Nixon's motion for summary judgment on absolute immunity grounds. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the collateral appeal. Shortly after Nixon petitioned for certiorari the parties agreed that Nixon would pay Fitzgerald $142,000 immediately and an additional $28,000 if the Supreme Court ruled he was not entitled to absolute immunity.

On April 5, 1983, David A. Boyle, a United States Marine helicopter copilot, was killed when the CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter he was flying crashed into the ocean off the coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia, during a training exercise. Boyle and one other crew member were trapped inside the sinking helicopter and drowned, while three others escaped. His father, the petitioner, brought a diversity action against the helicopter's manufacturer, respondent United Technologies Corporation (Sikorsky Division), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The petitioner alleged under Virginia tort law that the manufacturer had defectively designed the copilot's emergency escape system because the hatch opened outward rather than inward and its release mechanism was obstructed. The petitioner also alleged that the manufacturer had negligently failed to warn the Navy of dangers in the escape hatch and system. The jury returned a general verdict in the petitioner's favor and awarded $725,000. The District Court denied the manufacturer's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the manufacturer. It held that the state-law tort action was barred by the government contractor defense it had recognized in McKay v. Rockwell International Corp., under which a contractor is not liable for design defects if the United States approved reasonably precise specifications, the equipment conformed to those specifications, and the supplier warned the United States about dangers known to the supplier but not to the United States. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish a violation of the third condition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the propriety of the government contractor defense and to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. The case reached the Court after the Fourth Circuit's 1986 decision in 792 F.2d 413, following the 1983 crash and the subsequent district court trial.