Opinion ID: 13423
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Acting on Behalf of the United States

Text: 19 Solomon also argues that the persons acting on behalf of the federal government in an official capacity language of § 2671 includes him. The Supreme Court considered and rejected a similar argument in Logue. 412 U.S. at 531-32, 93 S.Ct. at 2221-22. The acting on behalf of language was meant to cover the dollar-a-year man who is in government service without pay or an individual who is directly supervised by a federal agency pursuant to an agreement. Id. Solomon fits neither of the above descriptions. Additionally, to apply the acting on behalf of language to an independent contractor because he was asked to provide a service for the government, as urged by Solomon, would make the distinction between employees and independent contractors virtually meaningless. Cf. id. at 532, 93 S.Ct. at 2221-22. Under such an expansive construction of the language, all independent contractors would be acting on behalf of the United States and would make the explicit exclusion of independent contractors from the FTCA in § 2671 meaningless. See 28 U.S.C. § 2671. 20 Because we affirm the district court's denial of Solomon's motion for certification on the grounds that he is not a federal employee, we need not consider whether he was acting in the scope of his employment. 21