Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Law And National Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews immunity for defense-contractor reports in Missler v. Lockheed
Summary
The court considered whether a private defense contractor enjoys absolute immunity for statements made in required federal reports and whether exceptions (rumor/innuendo, falsity) apply; the panel heard competing precedent-based arguments and took the matter under advisement.
The Appeals Court heard argument in Missler v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (24P.706) over whether a defense contractor is absolutely immune for statements it places in federal reporting systems or government-directed reports and whether exceptions apply when allegations are allegedly false or based on rumor.
Plaintiff's counsel Nina Callan said Massachusetts and federal precedent do not support a broad, across-the-board absolute privilege for private contractors who submit adverse personnel reports to government databases. She asked the court to limit or refuse a federal common-law absolute-immunity rule in this context and stressed evidence the plaintiff's security-clearance record was flagged for years and that the contractor's statements had serious career consequences.
Lockheed's counsel argued the reporting obligation under federal procurement and security regulations requires candid disclosure and that courts have recognized a qualified or absolute privilege in analogous reporting contexts (citing federal authorities). The company defended the lower court's summary disposition and argued that permitting routine defamation suits would chill mandatory reporting needed for national-security and contract compliance.
Argument also touched on which federal precedents apply (including NISPOM/JPAS guidance and the Becker line of cases) and whether the plaintiff had established an exception such as reporting based on "rumor or innuendo" or actual knowledge of falsity. The court questioned procedural aspects (whether the lower-court ruling was treated as summary judgment) and noted the factual record included multiple agency letters and administrative outcomes; the panel took the matter under advisement.
