# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 13 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Neb ras ka Beef

, Ltd

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 15, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Aug us t 2 7, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Neb ras ka Bee f, Ltd

. (“ Neb ras ka Be e f ” ) ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of 1

su m m ary jud gm en t to th e go ve rn m en t in th is act io n to en fo rce a s e t t l e men t
ag reem en t. We affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Jo se ph F. Bat ai ll on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.I. Bac kg ro un d

In 20 12
, th e Uni te d St at es Offi ce of Sp eci al Co un se l fo r Im m ig rat io n- Rel at ed Unf ai r Em pl oym en t Prac ti ces (OSC), a se ct io n in th e Dep art m en t of Ju st ic e (DOJ)
, 2
be ga n an in ve st ig at io n in to Neb ras ka Bee f, a m eat -p ack in g co m pa ny. The
in ve st ig at io n so ug ht to de te rm in e whe th er th e c o m pa ny di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t im m ig ran t wor ke rs in vi ol at io n of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4b

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e OSC al le ge d
th at Neb ras ka Bee f un la wfu ll y req ui red wor k- au th or iz ed i mm i g r an ts to pr ov id e
cert ai n d oc um en ts no t re qu ire d o f no n- im m ig ran ts

. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 13 24 b( a)(6 ).

In 20 15
, rat he r th an pr oc eed in to li ti ga ti on , th e go ve rn m en t an d Neb ras ka Bee f

en te red in to a se tt le m en t ag reem en t. The ag reem en t req ui red N e b r as ka Bee f to pa y

a $2 00 ,00 0 ci vi l pe na lt y an d to p r o v i d e b a c k pa y to th os e who were no t hi red as a

res ul t of th e pr act ic e or who se hi rin g was de la y ed by i t. Neb ras ka Bee f al so ag reed

no t to en ga ge in an y su ch pr act ic es in th e fu tu re. The th ird an d fo ur th op en in g reci ta ls of th e ag reem en t s et for th th e p art ie s’ po si ti on s o n l ia bi li ty:

W HEREAS, th e Offi ce of Sp eci al Co un se l co nc lu de d ba se d up on it s i nv es ti ga ti on th at th ere is reas on ab le cau se to be li ev e th at Res po nd en t us ed do cu m en ta ry pr act ic es ba se d on ci ti zen sh ip st at u s in vi ol at io n o f [8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4b (a)( 6) ].

W HEREAS, Neb ras ka Bee f de ni es t h a t it ha s us ed an y d o c u m en ta ry po li ci es or pr act ic es ba se d on ci ti zen sh ip st at us in it s

e mp l o y m en t el ig ib il it y ve rif ic at io n pr oc es s in vi ol at io n of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4b (a)( 6)

.

App el la nt ’s Add . at 1 0.

The OSC un de rwen t a na m e ch an ge , be co m in g th e I mm i gr at io n an d 2 Em pl oym en t Ri gh ts Sect io n, aft er li ti ga ti on in th is cas e be ga n. Fo r eas e of refe ren ce, we refe r to it as t he OSC in th is op in io n.

-2

-P a r a gr ap h 3( b) st at ed
, “ The Offi ce of Sp eci al Co un se l m ai nt ai ns it s rig ht
, as

a fed eral ag en cy st at ut or il y ch arg ed wit h se rv in g an d ed uc at in g th e pu bl ic reg ard in g th e sc op e of it s en fo rcem en t act iv it ie s, to no ti fy th e pu bl ic
, in cl ud in g bu t no t li m it ed

to in di vi du al s [Neb ras ka Bee f] id en ti fie s an d no ti fie s pu rs ua nt to pa rag rap h 3, ab ou t th is Agre em en t.” Ap pe ll an t’s Ad d. at 11

.

Neb ras ka Bee f si gn ed th e ag reem en t on Aug us t 20
, 20 15
, an d th e go ve rn m en t

ex ecu te d it fo ur da y s la te r. Tha t sa m e da y , th e OSC is su ed a pr es s rel eas e an no un ci ng th e ag reem en t o n t h e DOJ web si te

. The web pa ge al so li nk ed to a co py of th e

se tt le m en t ag reem en t. Th e fi rs t t wo p arag rap hs of t he rel eas e st at ed :

The Ju st ic e Dep art m en t an no un ced to da y th at it reac he d a se tt le m en t wit h Neb ras ka Bee f Ltd
., a m eat pa ck in g co m p an y he ad qu art ered in Om ah a, N eb ra ska

. T he se ttl em en t res ol ve s an in ve st ig at io n by th e Offi ce of Sp eci al Co un se l fo r Im m ig rat io n- Rel at ed Unf

ai r Em pl oym en t Prac ti ces (OSC) in to w he th er th e co m pa ny was en ga gi ng in em

pl oym en t di sc riminat io n in vi ol at io n of th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (lNA). In pa rti cu la r, OSC in ve st ig a t e d w he th er th e co m pa ny was req ui rin g non- U

. S. ci tiz en em plo y ee s, be caus e of th ei r ci ti zen sh ip st at us , to pr es en t pr oo f of th ei r im m ig rat io n st at us fo r th e e m pl oym en t el ig ib il it y ve rif ic at io n p ro ces s.

The de pa rtment’s in ve st ig at io n fo un d th at th e co mp a n y req ui red

no n- U.S. ci ti zen s, bu t no t si m il arl y -s it ua te d U.S. ci ti zen s, to pr es en t sp eci fic do cu m en ta ry p r o o f of th ei r im m ig rat io n st at us to ve rif y th ei r

em pl oym en t el ig ib il it y

. The INA’s an ti -d is cri m in at io n p ro vi si on pr oh ib it s em

pl oyers fro m mak i n g do cu m en ta ry de m an ds ba se d on ci ti zen sh ip or na ti o n a l or ig in whe n ve rif y in g an em

pl oyee’s

au th or iz at io n t o wo rk

.

App el la nt ’s Add

. at 20

. Thre e da y s la te r, Neb ras ka Bee f’s co un se l se nt a le tt er to th e OSC accu si ng it of br each in g th e ag reem en t. The le tt er st at ed th at th e DOJ la ck ed th e

au th or it y to m ak e a fin di ng th at Neb ras ka Bee f “ req ui red no n- U

. S

. ci ti zen s

. . . to

-3

-pr es en t sp eci fic do cu m en ta ry pr oo f of th ei r im m ig rat io n st at us ” a s de sc rib ed in th e

pr es s rel eas e. App el la nt ’s Add

. at 22

. Neb ras ka Bee f st at ed th at it ne v er ag reed to

su ch a fin di n g a n d t h a t th e ag reem en t di d no t pr ov id e fo r su ch a fin di ng . Ne br as ka
Bee f de cl ared th at , as a co ns eq ue nc e of th e go ve rn m en t’s br each
, it wou ld no t m ak e

an y of t he pa y

m en ts req ui red by the ag reem en t.

Afte r Neb ras ka Bee f m ad e go od on th at th reat , th e go ve rn m en t fil ed th is br each -o f-co nt ract su it to co m pe l c o mpli an ce wit h th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t. Neb ras ka Bee f co un te rcl ai m ed fo r br each of c on tra ct an d so ug ht de cl arat or y rel ie f. Sp eci fic al ly, Neb ras ka Bee f so ug ht an or de r rel eas in g it fro m it s ob li ga ti on s un de r th e
ag reem en t be cau se th e go ve rn m en t’s st at em en t th at it s “ in ve st ig at io n fo un d”

wro ng do in g was a m at eri al bre ach ex cu si ng it s n on pe rfo rm an ce.

Neb ras ka Bee f fil ed a m ot io n fo r pa r ti al su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th e
go ve rn m en t fil ed a cro ss -m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The cen tra l qu es ti on faci ng th e di st ric t co ur t was whe th er th e go ve rn m en t’s pr es s r e l e as e st at in g th at it s in ve st ig at io n fo un d th at Neb ras ka Bee f ha d en ga ge d in il le ga l em pl oym en t pr act ic es

co ns ti tu te d a m at eri al bre ach of th e ag reem en t. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at it di d n ot an d ru le d i n fa vo r of th e g ov ern m en t.

The di st ric t co ur t be ga n it s an al y si s by di sc us si ng th e effe ct of th e reci ta ls an d

co nc lu de d th at “ un de r Neb ras ka la w, reci ta ls are ge ne ral ly un de r s t o od to be us efu l
in so far as th ey are ab le to cl ari fy am bi gu ou s or im

pr eci se po rti on s of an ag reem en t.”
Uni te d St at es v. Neb ra sk a Beef

, Lt d.
, No. 8: 15 -cv -0 03 70 -J FB

- TD T, 20 16 W L
10 63 63 73
, at *2 (D. Neb

. D e c

. 9
, 20 16 ) (ci ti ng Pro ps

. In v. Grp

. of Mid

-Am. v. App li ed Co mmc’n s, In c. , 49 5 N.W .2d 48 3, 48 9 (Neb

. 19 93 ); McKi nn on v. Bak er , 37 0
N.W .2d 49 2, 49 4 (Neb

. 19 85 ); In re St ri ckl an d’ s Est at e , 14 9 N.W .2d 34 4, 35 1 (Neb

. 19 67 )). It al so lo ok ed to ot he r st at es ’ ap pr oa ch es to si m il ar si tu at io ns

. Ult im at el y , th e

co ur t h el d th at th e “ W HEREAS” cl au se s i n t he reci ta ls “ rel at ed to Nebr as ka Beef ’s de ni al of li ab il it y .” Id

. at *3

. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e reci ta ls “ are bi nd in g

-4

-po rti on s of th e Set tl em en t Agr eem en t” be cau se th ey were refe ren ced in th e op erat iv e

po rti on of th e ag reem en t. Id

. (ci ti ng McGin ni s v. Vis ch er in g, L.L.C.
, 80 8 N.W .2d 75 6 (Io wa Ct

. Ap p

. 2 0 1 1 ) (ta bl e de ci si on ) (h ol di ng reci ta ls be co m e pa rt of th e bi nd in g
te rm s of th e ag reem en t whe n op erat iv e po rti on of ag reem en t refe ren ces te rm de fin ed
i n r e ci ta ls ); St ow er

s v. Cmty

. Med

. Ct r., In c. , 17 2 P.3 d 12 52
, 12 56 (Mo nt

. 2 0 0 7 ) (h ol di ng th at a co nt ract ’s reci ta ls be co m e an op erat iv e as pe ct of th e ag reem en t “ whe n th ey in cl ud e la ng ua ge in di cat in g th e co nt ract is be in g fo rm ed in co ns id erat io n of
th os e rec it al s” (ci ta ti on om it te d) )).

Des pi te ho ld in g th at th e reci ta ls were a bi nd in g pa rt of th e ag reem en t, th e co ur t he ld th at no bre ach , m at eri al or o th erwi se , occ ur red :

The Co ur t do es no t be li ev e th at th e la ng ua ge in th e Set tl em en t Agr eem en t va rie s su ffi ci en tl y so as to co ns ti tu te a br each as a m at te r of la w. The pr es s rel eas e it se lf m en ti on s th e wor d “ in ve st ig at i o n ” f ou r ti mes

. Th e pr es s rel eas e pr ov id ed a li nk to th e Set tl em en t Agr eem en t, whe re i t s ta te d t ha t Neb ras ka Beef de ni ed th e al le ga ti on s.

The Uni te d S ta te s ab so lu te ly ha d th e rig ht to “ no ti fy th e p ub li c” ab ou t th e Set tl em en t Agr eem en t un de r Sect io n 3( b) an d th at rig ht al lo wed th e Uni te d St at es to in fo rm th e pu bl ic

. Fo r th e sa ke of arg um en t, th e Co ur t ag rees th at th e Uni te d St at es us ed la ng ua ge di ffer en t th an th e la ng ua ge us ed in th e Set tl em en t Agree m en t when no ti fy in g th e pu bl ic

. Howev er, th e real qu es ti on is whe th er th e la ng ua ge us ed by th e Uni te d St at es was a m at eri al bre ach of t he Set tl em en t Ag reem en t.

Id

. It la te r no te d th at “ [t]he re is ab so lu te ly no th in g in th e Set tl em en t Agr eem en t th at li m it s o r co ns tra in s t he st at em en ts of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” Id

. at * 4.

Reg ard in g m at eri al it y , th e co ur t st at ed th at a m at eri al br each ei th er “ de feat s th e

es se nt ia l pu rp os e of th e co nt ract or m ak es it im po ss ib le fo r th e ot he r pa rty to pe rfo rm

un de r th e co nt ract .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Si ou xl an d Eth an ol

, LLC v. Se ba de Bro s., LLC
, 85 9

-5

-N.W .2d 58 6, 59 2 (Neb. 20 15 )). The co ur t d et erm in ed th e p ur po se of t he ag reem en t

was to “ res ol ve th e di sp ut e in a co m pr om is e th at av oi de d li ti ga ti on ” an d de te rm in ed
th at th e “ pr es s re le as e d id no t fr us tra te th is pu rp os e.” Id

.

The us e of th e w or d “ fo un d” rat he r th an th e ph ras e “ ha d

reas on ab le cau se to be li ev e” di d no t fru st rat e th e ag reem en t be twee n th e pa rti es to res ol ve th is di sp ut e wit ho ut li ti ga ti on

. The “ es se nt ia l pu rp os e” of th e ag reem en t, th e ne go ti at io n th at Neb ras ka Bee f wou ld pa y a fin e in ex ch an ge fo r th e Uni te d St at es ’ no t pu rs ui ng le ga l a c t i o n a ga in st th em , rem ai ns in ta ct

.

Id

. The co ur t gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary ju d g ment an d or de red Neb ras ka Beef

to ab id e b y

th e se tt le m en t. 3

II. Dis cu ss io n

“ W e rev ie w a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo .” Sw if t & Co

. v. Eli as Far ms, In c. , 53 9 F.3 d 84 9, 85 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Bec au se Neb ras ka
Bee f ha s fa il ed to id en ti fy a pr om is e b reac he d b y

th e OSC, we aff

irm.

As an in it ia l m at te r, we no te th at th e g ov ern m en t, ci ti ng Aud io Ody ss ey, Lt d.

v. Uni te d St at es , 25 5 F.3 d 51 2, 52 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ), al le ge s in a fo ot no te th at fed eral

c o m m on la w ap pl ie s to th is cas e. Neb ras ka Bee f di d no t ad dr es s th is co n t e n t i o n

. Non e t h e l e s s , w e fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e la w of Neb ras ka , th e fo ru m

st at e.

In Uni te d St at es v. Bame
, th e go ve rn m en t su ed fo r un jus t en ric hm en t to reco ve r

a m is ta ke nl y di sb ur se d ta x refu nd an d so ug ht th e ap pl ic at io n of fed eral co m m on la w.

Tho ug h th ere was a po st -jud gm en t di sp ut e reg ard in g a st ay of en fo rcem en t of 3 th e ag reem en t pe nd in g th e di sp os it io n of Neb ras ka Bee f’s ap pe a l
, th at is su e is no t be fo re t hi s co ur t.

-6

-72 1 F.3 d 10 25
, 10 26 , 1 03 0 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). W e de te rm in ed th at th e ap pl ic at io n

of fed eral co m

m on la w was ap pr op ria te “ on ly whe n ‘the re is a si gn ifi can t co nf li ct be twee n so m e fed eral po li cy or in te res t an d th e us e of st at e la w.’ ” Id

. at 1 0 3 0 n.4 (q uo ti ng O’Mel ven

y & Myer s v. FDIC
, 51 2 U.S. 79
, 87 (1 99 4) ). W e co nc lu de d th at

“ [f]or fed eral co mm o n l a w t o ap pl y , th e go ve rn m en t wou ld ne ed to id en ti fy ‘a

sp eci fic
, co nc ret e fed eral po li cy or in te res t th at is co m pr om is ed by [s ta te ] la w.’ ” Id

. (s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng O’Me l v e n y & Myer

s , 51 2 U.S. at 88 ). In
Ba m e , th ere was no co m

pr om is e of fed eral po li cy or in te res t. W e th eref or e ap p l i e d
th e su bs ta nt iv e la w of Mi nn es ot a, th e fo ru m st at e. The in st an t cas e si m il arl y in vo lv es

no co m pr om is e of fed eral po li cy or in te res t caus ed by ap pl ic ab le Neb ras ka co nt ract la w. Acco rd in gl y , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ct co ur t’s u se of Ne br as ka law. 4

“ In or de r to reco ve r in an act io n fo r br each of co nt ract , th e pl ai nt iff m us t pl ead

an d pr ov e th e ex is te nc e of a pr om is e, it s br each
, da m ag e, an d co m pl ia nc e wit h an y

co nd it io ns pr eced en t th at act iv at e th e de fen da nt ’s du ty.” Hen ri ks en v. Glea so n , 64 3
N.W .2d 65 2, 65 8 (Neb

. 20 02 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. “ A br each is th e no np erfo rm an ce of

a du ty

. . . . ” W

eb er v. N. Lo up Rive r Pub

. Pow er & Ir ri ga ti on Dis t. , 85 4 N.W .2d 26 3,
27 1 (Neb

. 20 14 ). A br each th at is m at eri al ex cu se s th e no nb reac hi ng pa rty of it s du ty
to pe rfo rm

it s o bl ig at io ns un de r th e co nt ract

. Si ou xl an d , 85 9 N.W.2d a t 5 92

.

W e al so n o t e th at th e go ve rn m en t co nc ed es th at th is “ di sp ut e cen te rs on 4
ap pl ic at io n of well -es ta bl is he d co m m on la w pr in ci pl es to th e fact s of th e c a s e

. ” App el le e’s Br. at 10 n.5

. As we se e no va ria nc e be twee n Neb ras ka st at e la w an d fed eral co m

m on la w on th is is su e, th e res ul t wou ld be th e sa m e un de r ei th er. Se e Sw

. Bell Tel

. Co

. v. Co nn ect Co mmc’n s Co rp

. , 22 5 F.3 d 94 2, 94 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (Arn ol d, J., di ss en ti ng ) (“ It m ig ht well be st at e la w or it m ig ht be fed eral co m m on la w, bu t in

an y cas e th e pr in ci pl es wou ld li ke ly be th e sa m e, or vi rtu al ly id en ti cal
, be cau se of th e ge ne ral un ifo rm it y of th e co nt ract pr in ci pl es ap pl ie d th ro ug ho ut th e co un try in st at e

an d fe de ral co ur ts ali ke .”).

-7

-Neb ras ka Bee f fir st arg ue s th at th e OSC’s pr es s rel eas e m is rep res en ts th e

ag reem en t an d th e fact s, an d it co nt en ds th at th e go ve rn m en t’s cl ai m to ha ve “ fo un d”

a vi ol at io n ex ceed s th e sc op e of an ag en cy ’s po wers

. It st at es th at “ ha vi ng ‘fo un d’

so m et hi ng oc cu rred un eq ui vo cal ly sug ge st s t ha t i t d id , in fact
, oc cu r. An al le ga ti on

an d a fin di ng of f

au lt are en ti rel y di ffer en t th in gs . Th e di st in ct io n he re is am pl ifi ed whe n ne ws ou tl et s in tu rn rep eat ed th e DOJ’s ‘find in g’ of wro ng do in g [s ic ] fro m th e Pres s Rel eas e.” Ap pe ll an t’s Br . at 1 0. In su pp or t, Neb ras ka Bee f ci te s Bl ack ’s La w Dict io na ry , whi ch d e f

i n e s “ fin d” as “ [t]o de te rm in e a fact in di sp ut e by ve rd ic t or de ci si on .” Fin d
, Bl ack ’s Law Dict io na ry (1 0t h ed

. 20 14 ). It al so ci te s a cas e fro m th e East ern Dis tri ct of Tex as in whi ch th e co u r t h e l d i t im pr op er fo r an ag en cy to di sq ua li fy co nt ract or s fro m pr ojec ts ba se d on “ ad m in is tra ti ve m eri ts de te rm in at io ns ” th at were ess en ti al ly un ad jud ic at ed al le ga ti on s of wron gd oi ng

. Ass oc ia te d Buil de rs & Co nt ra ct or

s of Se

. Tex. v. Run g , No. 1: 16 -CV-4 25 20 16
, 20 16 W L 81 88 65 5, at *6 (E.D. Tex

. Oct. 24
, 20 16 ). Acco rd in g to Neb ras ka Bee f, th es e au th or it ie s su pp or t th e
pr op os it io n th at an ag en cy m ay no t cl ai m to ha ve m ad e a fin d i n g in th e ab se nc e of ei th er an ad m is si on by the pa rty accu se d o f wro ng do in g o r so m e jud ic ia l p ro ces s.

Neb ras ka Be ef al so cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ns tru ed th e es se nt ia l pu rp os e of th e ag reem en t to o n a r r o w l y. Tho ug h it ag rees th at av oi di ng li ti ga ti on was a

m ot iv at io n fo r se tt li ng th e cas e, Neb ras ka Bee f av ers th at it al so so ug ht to av oi d an y ad m is si on of li ab il it y

. In s u p p or t, it ci te s Pri em v. Sh ir es , in whi ch a Tex as co ur t id en ti fie d th e pu rp os e of a se tt le m en t ag reem en t as “ co m pr om is in g d o u b t f

ul an d di sp ut ed cl ai m s s o a s t o a vo id li ti ga ti on an d bu y pe ace with ou t adm it ti ng li ab il it y .”
69 7 S .W .2d 86 0, 8 64 (Tex . Ct. Ap p. 1 98 5)

.

The go ve rn m en t res po nd s th at no th in g in th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t pr oh ib it ed
it fro m ch arac te riz in g th e se tt le m en t as it w i s h e d i n a pr es s rel eas e an no un ci ng th e
ag reem en t. The go ve rn m en t is co rrec t. T he se ttl em en t ag reem en t do es no t co nt ai n an y
st ip ul at ed fact s no r an ad m is si on by Neb ras ka Bee f th at th e co m pa ny vi ol at ed fed eral
la w. Howev er, th ou gh th e ag reem en t di d no t ex pl ic it ly au th or iz e th e OSC to st at e th at

-8

-i ts in ve st ig at io n fo un d vi ol at io ns , th e ag reem en t al so di d no t fo rb id th e OSC fr o m

do in g so

. W e fin d it so m ewh at tro ub li ng fo r th e go ve rn m en t to en te r in to a se tt le m en t in whi ch th e accu se d pa rty m ai nt ai ns it s i nn oc en ce yet th e g ov ern m en t n on et he le ss de cl ares it fo un d vi ol at io ns of th e la w. Bu t whi le co nd uc ti ng li ti ga ti on an d pu b li c rel at io ns in th is fas hi on m ay be su sp ect , it do es no t m at eri al ly vi ol at e th e se tt le m en t
ag reem en t i n a m an ne r th at wou ld ex cu se Nebr as ka Beef ’s ob li ga ti on s t he reu nd er.

To fin d a br each
, we m

us t fir st fin d a pr om is e. Hen ri ks en , 64 3 N.W .2d at 65 8.
As th e di st ric t co ur t he ld
, “ The re is ab so lu te ly no th in g in th e Set tl em en t Agr eem en t th at li m it s or co ns tra in s th e st at em en ts of th e Uni te d St at es

. . . .” Neb ra sk a Beef

, Lt d.
, 20 16 W L 10 63 63 73
, at *4

. W he th er th e reci ta ls sh ou ld be co ns id ered bi nd in g, as th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d, ne ed no t be res ol ve d, be cau se no th in g in th e a g r e e men t im po se s a du ty on ei th er pa rty to do or ab st ai n fro m an y th in g wit h reg ard to ho w th ey
pu bl ic ly de sc r ib e th e en fo rcem en t act io n. Bec au se th e go ve rn m en t di d no t fai l to fu lfi ll an y pr o mi s e , Neb ras ka Bee f’s br each -o f-co nt ract co un te rcl ai m fai ls an d th e
go ve rn m en t’s cl ai m

for en fo rcem en t p rev ai ls

.

III. Co nc lu si on Acco rd in gl y , th e di st r ic t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed Neb ras ka Bee f’s m ot io n fo r
pa rti a l s u mm ary jud gm en t an d gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e
go ve rn m en t. We affi rm

.

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

The OSC br ea c h e d it s ob li ga ti on –i nd eed
, it s co nt ract ua l du ty–to no ti fy th e
pu bl ic ab ou t th e Agr eem en t it se lf whe n it an no un ced pu bl ic ly th at th e "d ep art m en t's
in ve st ig at io n fo un d " th at Neb ras ka Bee f en ga ge d in em pl oym en t di sc ri mi n a t i on in vi ol at i o n o f t he INA. W eb er v. N. Lou p Ri ve r Pu b. Po wer & Irri ga ti on Dis t., 85 4
N.W .2d 26 3, 27 0

- 7 1 ( N e b

. 20 14 ) (n ot in g th at pa rti es ' ob li ga ti on s ari se fro m th e

co nt ract s th em se lv es an d th at a br each is th e no np erfo rm an ce o f a dut y ). Giv en th e

-9

-reci ta ls an d c o n t r a c t la ng ua ge of th is Agr eem en t, al on g wit h th e po rtr ay al of th e

Agr eem en t by th e pa rti es th em se lv es in th is li ti ga ti on , it is ax io m at ic th at th e es se nt ia l

pu rp os e of th e Agr eem en t was to a v o i d c o st ly li ti ga ti on an d to av oi d ad m is si on of
li ab il it y on th e pa rt of Neb ras ka Bee f reg ard in g th e co nc lu si on by th e OSC th at it ha d
"re as on ab le cau se " to be li e v e th at Neb ras ka Bee f vi ol at ed 8 U.S.C. § 13 24 b( a)(6 ).

The co ur t accu rat el y po in ts ou t th at th e Agr eem en t di d no t fo rb id th e OSC fro m
st at in g th at it s i nv es ti ga ti on fo un d vi ol at io ns

. Ant e at 8- 9. Howev er, th e OSC wa s

un de r an ob li ga ti on to de sc rib e th e Agr eem en t accu r a te ly, whi ch Agr eem en t

es ta bl is he d on ly th at th e OSC ha d "re as on ab le cau se " to be li ev e th at Neb ras ka Bee f

en ga ge d in pr act ic es th at vi ol at ed th e INA an d th at Neb ras ka Bee f de ni ed th e sa m e. The st at em en t by th e OSC in th e pr es s rel eas e th at it "fo un d" th at th e co m pa ny

v i o l a t ed th e INA im

pa rts th e id ea th at Neb ras ka Bee f di d, in de ed
, do so , a far cry fro m a "re as on ab le cau se " to be li ev e th at a vi ol at io n occ ur red

. Acco rd in gl y , OSC's

pu bl ic st at em en t was a m at eri al br each of it s du ty un de r th e Agr eem en t to accu rat el y

no ti fy an d ed uc at e th e pu bl ic

. Si o u x l a n d Eth an ol , LLC v. Seb ad e Bro s., LLC, 8 59
N.W .2d 58 6, 59 2 (Neb

. 20 15 ) ("A 'm at eri al br each ' is a fai lu re to do so m et hi ng th at is so fu nd am en ta l to a co nt ract th at th e fai lu re to pe rfo rm th at ob li ga ti on de feat s th e

es se nt ia l pu rp os e of th e co nt ract or m ak es it im po ss ib le fo r th e ot he r pa rty to pe rfo rm

un de r th e co nt ract ." (al te rat io n an d qu ot at io n om it te d) ). To m ak e a "fi nd in g" m ean s "[t ]o de te rm in e a fact in di sp ut e by ve rd ic t or de ci si on ." Bl ack 's Law Dict io na ry (1 0t h e d. 2 01 4) . There was n o s uc h " fin di ng " h ere. Acco rd in gl y , I di ss en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-