Abbey v. United States
745 F.3d 1363
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- FAA air-traffic controllers sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims claiming FAA policies that paid overtime as compensatory time or credit hours (rather than 1.5x pay under the FLSA) violated 29 U.S.C. § 207 and sought money damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
- Before 1996 the FAA relied on Title 5 (notably 5 U.S.C. §§ 5543 and 6120–6133) to provide compensatory time and credit-hours alternatives to cash overtime for certain federal employees.
- The Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 1996 directed the FAA to develop a new personnel management system (PMS) providing “greater flexibility” and stated “the provisions of title 5 shall not apply to the new personnel management system” except for a limited list of enumerated Title 5 provisions (49 U.S.C. § 40122(g)).
- The FAA implemented a PMS in 1996 and continued practices of compensatory time and credit hours; Congress then enacted a Reauthorization Act giving FAA additional authority over compensation (49 U.S.C. § 106(i)).
- The Court of Federal Claims held FAA lacked authority to depart from the FLSA’s overtime-pay requirement because the relevant Title 5 exemptions were not enumerated in § 40122(g)(2), and awarded damages to controllers; the government appealed.
- The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded: it rejected the Claims Court’s premise that no statutory authority allowed the FAA to depart from the FLSA, held that 5 U.S.C. §§ 5543 and 6120–6133 can continue to authorize such departures under a permissible reading of § 40122(g), and remanded to decide whether the FAA’s actual policies fall within those Title 5 provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims had Tucker Act jurisdiction to hear FLSA damages claims against the United States | Tucker Act is proper forum for FLSA damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) | Government argued Bormes undermines Tucker Act coverage for statutory damages suits | Tucker Act jurisdiction applies; Bormes does not displace the long-held rule that FLSA damages suits against the U.S. are cognizable under the Tucker Act |
| Whether FAA could rely on § 40122(g)(1) or 49 U.S.C. § 106(i) alone to override FLSA overtime requirement | Controllers: those provisions do not authorize departure from clear FLSA command | Government: those provisions grant FAA flexibility to set compensation and thus override FLSA | Neither § 40122(g)(1) nor § 106(i) alone authorizes departure from § 207(a) of FLSA |
| Whether 5 U.S.C. §§ 5543 and 6120–6133 survived the Appropriations Act’s statement that Title 5 “shall not apply” to FAA PMS | Controllers: § 40122(g)(2)’s “shall not apply” eliminates those Title 5 provisions for FAA | Government/FAA: § 40122(g)(2) relieves constraining Title 5 requirements but permits the FAA to adopt Title 5 provisions that empower it; §§ 5543 and 6120–6133 therefore remain available | Court: Reasonable to read § 40122(g)(2) as disapplying Title 5 constraints while allowing Title 5 provisions that empower agency flexibility to remain; §§ 5543 and 6120–6133 can provide authority |
| Whether FAA policies (compensatory time and credit hours) are authorized by §§ 5543 and 6120–6133 | Controllers: FAA policies violated FLSA because those Title 5 provisions do not apply to FAA PMS | Government: policies fall within the scope of those Title 5 provisions as incorporated or adopted by FAA | Remanded to Court of Federal Claims to determine whether FAA’s actual compensatory-time and credit-hours policies are fully or partly within the authorization of §§ 5543 and 6120–6133 |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Henegar, 640 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1981) (early recognition that Tucker Act is basis for FLSA suits against the United States)
- Zumerling v. Devine, 769 F.2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (discussing forum for FLSA claims against the government)
- Saraco v. United States, 61 F.3d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Tucker Act jurisdiction over FLSA damages suits against U.S.)
- Waters v. Rumsfeld, 320 F.3d 265 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (treating FLSA claims against government under Tucker Act)
- Brodowy v. United States, 482 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (agency incorporated an unenumerated Title 5 provision into its FAA personnel plan)
- Gonzalez v. Dep’t of Transp., 551 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (distinguishing incorporation of Title 5 provisions that constrain FAA from those that empower it)