Athey v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 683
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- This is a class action by former Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees alleging the VA underpaid lump‑sum payouts for unused annual leave by omitting COLAs, locality pay, and certain premium pays under the Lump‑Sum Payment statute (5 U.S.C. §§ 5551–5552) and seeking interest under the Back Pay Act (5 U.S.C. § 5596).
- The case derives from Archuleta (a prior multi‑agency settlement); VA employees were severed and refiled here as an opt‑in class covering separations on or after April 7, 1993.
- The court previously dismissed several premium‑pay claims (night/weekend pay; Sunday pay on/after Oct. 1, 1997) and granted partial summary judgment for certain former General Schedule (GS) VA employees as to entitlement to COLAs and locality adjustments effective during unexpired leave between April 7, 1993 and Sept. 20, 2010.
- The court later held that plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest under the Back Pay Act for the lump‑sum miscalculations.
- The parties negotiated a settlement: the United States will pay $570,374.49 in back lump‑sum pay plus $66,972.88 employer tax contribution (total $637,347.37), representing 100% of the government’s calculated exposure (exclusive of night/weekend pay, Back Pay Act interest, and fees). The court held a fairness hearing, received no class objections, and approved the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COLAs and locality pay must be included in lump‑sum leave payouts | COLAs and locality adjustments that became effective during unexpired leave should be included under 5 U.S.C. § 5551 | VA disputed liability for certain employees/non‑GS employees | Court granted summary judgment for certain former GS VA employees (entitled to COLAs and locality pay during unexpired leave from 4/7/1993–9/20/2010); denied as to non‑GS employees in subset class |
| Whether plaintiffs may recover prejudgment interest under the Back Pay Act | Plaintiffs sought interest under 5 U.S.C. § 5596 for the miscalculation | Government argued interest not payable for these lump‑sum miscalculations | Court held plaintiffs are not entitled to recover interest under the Back Pay Act |
| Validity and fairness of proposed class settlement (100% calculated back pay) | Settlement provides full calculated lump‑sum back pay, tax contributions, and administration; plaintiffs supported approval | Government did not oppose settlement; represented by DOJ approval | Court found settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and approved it, directing entry of final judgment for $637,347.37 |
| Scope of dismissed premium‑pay claims (night/weekend/Sunday pay) | Plaintiffs initially sought various premium pays in lump sums | Government moved to dismiss several premium‑pay claims | Court dismissed with prejudice claims for night and weekend additional pay and other enumerated subsections; limited Sunday pay claims (excluded on/after 10/1/1997) |
Key Cases Cited
- Haggart v. Woodley, 809 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (standard for court approval of class settlements under RCFC 23(e))
- Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986) (limitations on court altering settlements and resolving merits when approving class settlements)
- Dauphin Island Prop. Owners Ass’n v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 95 (2009) (approving non‑collusive, good‑faith settlement negotiations)
- Raulerson v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 675 (2013) (deference to settlement and factors for evaluating fairness)
- Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (2011) (factors instructive for court review of class settlement fairness)