Adams v. United States
125 Fed. Cl. 608
Fed. Cl.2016Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former Physical Security Specialists in the Secret Service Technical Security Division who challenge scheduling changes (midweek "flex" day and Saturday work) instituted after 2013 sequestration cuts, claiming lost regular and overtime pay.
- They brought claims under 5 U.S.C. § 6101(a)(3)(A) & (B) (scheduling/tour-of-duty requirements), FLSA recordkeeping provisions, and 5 U.S.C. § 5545(c)(2); they seek backpay, liquidated damages, and interest.
- The government moved under RCFC 12(b)(1) to dismiss Count I for lack of Tucker Act jurisdiction, arguing §§ 6101(a)(3)(A) & (B) are not money-mandating.
- § 6101(a)(3)(A) requires advance scheduling of tours of duty; (B) requires that the basic 40-hour workweek be scheduled on five days, Monday–Friday when possible, with two consecutive days off.
- Plaintiffs argued violations of those subsections deprived them of pay (regular pay for midweek flex days and overtime for Saturday work) and relied on the Back Pay Act; government and court concluded the scheduling provisions do not themselves mandate payment.
- The Court granted the government’s partial motion and dismissed Count I without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 5 U.S.C. § 6101(a)(3)(A) & (B) are money-mandating so Tucker Act jurisdiction exists | §6101 scheduling rules create an entitlement to pay when violated (lost regular and overtime pay) | §6101 subsections regulate scheduling only and do not command payment; not money-mandating | Not money-mandating; Court lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction over Count I |
| Whether Sanford v. Weinberger is binding on money-mandating question | Sanford's jurisdictional discussion is dicta and not controlling | Sanford holds §6101(a)(3)(B) is not money-mandating and is persuasive/binding | Court treats Sanford's reasoning as controlling or at least persuasive; §6101(A)&(B) not money-mandating |
| Whether the Back Pay Act supplies jurisdiction absent a money-mandating statute | Back Pay Act allows relief for unjustified personnel actions that reduced pay | Back Pay Act is derivative and requires another money-mandating law to command payment | Back Pay Act cannot confer jurisdiction here because §6101(A)&(B) do not command payment |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a claim for money damages based on scheduling manipulations | Scheduling manipulations deprived plaintiffs of statutory pay entitlements | Plaintiffs have no statutory entitlement to pay for nonworked flex days or overtime unless statutory conditions for pay are met | Court rejected plaintiff's pay-entitlement theory; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (describes money-mandating test)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity but does not create substantive rights)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act requires independent source of money-mandating law)
- Sanford v. Weinberger, 752 F.2d 636 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding §6101(a)(3)(B) not money-mandating)
- Spagnola v. Stockman, 732 F.2d 908 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Back Pay Act is derivative and requires another money-mandating provision)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction is threshold issue)