Adam v. Norton, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3872

Wrucke and Calzia, scientists for the USGS, were terminated in a 1995 Reduction in Force.
They appealed to MSPB and then filed suit in district court after exhausting remedies.
The district court found the ADEA termination violated law and awarded back pay with pre- and post-judgment interest.
In 2009 the government moved under Rule 60(b) to void the interest.
Plaintiffs argued the Back Pay Act waives sovereign immunity for interest on back pay even when the underlying action is an ADEA case.
The district court ruled the Back Pay Act did not expressly waive immunity for ADEA-based interest; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Back Pay Act waives immunity for interest on back pay in ADEA cases.	Calzia/Wrucke: Back Pay Act’s waiver covers interest on back pay.	Norton/United States: ADEA lacks express interest waiver; Back Pay Act applies only to its own back pay actions.	Yes; Back Pay Act extends to interest in ADEA back-pay awards.
Whether the requirements of the Back Pay Act are satisfied here (timely appeal, appropriate authority, applicable law, unjustified action, and pay withdrawal).	Calzia/Wrucke: MSPB timely appeal and district court judgment meet Back Pay Act conditions.	Government: Act’s conditions cannot be satisfied here.	All conditions satisfied; interest must be awarded.

Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 (1986) (no-interest rule; express consent required for interest awards)
Brown v. Sec'y of the Army, 918 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Back Pay Act remedies extend to federal discrimination claims)
Woolf v. Bowles, 57 F.3d 407 (4th Cir. 1995) (Back Pay Act applies to pay reductions in Title VII contexts)
Edwards v. Lujan, 40 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 1994) (Back Pay Act waivers in federal discrimination cases)
Fausto v. United States, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (CSRA considered in Back Pay Act context for relief of personnel actions)