About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Spring 2026)

handle is hein.ali/resndacy0145 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2026 Citations AGENCY 2D Generally C.A.D.C.2025. Cit. generally in case quot. in sup. Independent contractor, who allegedly discovered billions of dollars that had been taken from Libya and dispersed across Africa after the death of Libya's former head of state, filed a claim for fraud against his lawyer and various federal employees, alleging that they deceived him into thinking that they would support him in the process of repatriating the funds. After the United States substituted itself as defendant for the federal employees pursuant to the Westfall Act, the district court granted the government's motion to dismiss, finding that sovereign immunity barred contractor's claims against the government. This court affirmed, holding that contractor failed to allege sufficient facts to overcome the government's Westfall certification, because the federal employees were carrying out duties within the scope of their employment. In reaching its conclusion, the court adhered to the analytical framework of the scope-of-employment inquiry set forth in the Restatement Second of Agency. Plevnik v. Sullivan, 146 F.4th 1174, 1182. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. DEFINITIONS § 1. Agency; Principal; Agent C.A.6, 2025. Subsec. (1) cit. and quot. in sup., subsec. (3) quot. in sup. Black employee sued employer after it fired her from her job as a sales representative, alleging, among other things, that employer created a hostile work environment based on the actions of a client of employer, and that employer fired her in retaliation when she complained of the client's sexual harassment. The district court granted summary judgment for employer. This court affirmed, holding that employer was not directly liable to employee under either federal or state law for its client's hostile work environment harassment of employee, nor was it vicariously liable for the client's actions, because the client was not employer's agent within the meaning of Restatement Second of Agency § 1. Bivens v. Zep, Inc., 147 F.4th 635, 643, 644, 647. COPYRIGHT C2026 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.