Adams v. United States
860 F.3d 1379
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Appellants are current and former U.S. Secret Service employees who challenged new scheduling practices.
- They alleged the practices denied them the two consecutive days off required by 5 U.S.C. § 6101(a)(3)(B).
- They sought money relief (back pay) based on the alleged statutory violation.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed part of their complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), concluding § 6101(a)(3)(B) is not money-mandating.
- Appellants appealed, arguing § 6101(a)(3)(B) creates a money-mandating right because it controls scheduling and thus affects pay, and alternatively that the Back Pay Act supplies jurisdiction.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, agreeing § 6101(a)(3)(B) does not command payment and the Back Pay Act cannot supply jurisdiction absent a money-mandating provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 5 U.S.C. § 6101(a)(3)(B) is money-mandating | § 6101(a)(3)(B)’s scheduling mandate entitles employees to work and thus pay | The provision governs scheduling only and does not entitle employees to money | Not money-mandating; no statutory entitlement to pay or overtime from scheduling alone |
| Whether the Back Pay Act supplies jurisdiction for § 6101 claims | Back Pay Act provides money relief for violations of § 6101 | Back Pay Act applies only when another statute commands payment of money | Back Pay Act inapplicable absent a separate money-mandating provision |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 608 (Fed. Cl. 2016) (claims court opinion concluding § 6101(a)(3)(B) is not money-mandating and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction)
- Spagnola v. Stockman, 732 F.2d 908 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Back Pay Act does not supply jurisdiction unless another statute mandates payment of money)