Baker v. United States
123 Fed. Cl. 203
| Fed. Cl. | 2015Background
- Patrick Baker resigned from his Army position in Nov. 2008 after an alcohol-related workplace incident; a coworker remained employed.
- In Aug. 2009 Baker executed a Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) with the Army providing a time-limited appointment to a WG-5803-08 position (contingent on meeting physical and suitability requirements) and $5,000 payments to Baker and his attorney.
- In Aug. 2009 Baker was charged (and later convicted) of third-degree domestic battery; the Army/contractor later deemed him unsuitable for depot access and employment due to the conviction.
- Baker filed multiple EEO/EEOC complaints and litigation; some claims were dismissed as untimely or for lack of jurisdiction by other courts.
- Baker sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (pro se) alleging racial discrimination (Title VII), defamation/emotional distress/retaliation (torts), wrongful IRS garnishment (administrative offset under DCIA/statutes), and breach of the NSA for failing to reinstate him.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the Court granted dismissal and denied Baker’s summary judgment motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court has jurisdiction over Title VII discrimination claim | Baker asserts racial discrimination under Title VII | Government: Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over Title VII claims | Dismissed — Court lacks jurisdiction over Title VII claims |
| Tort claims (defamation, emotional distress, retaliation) | Baker alleges tortious conduct by Army | Government: Tucker Act bars tort claims in this Court | Dismissed — tort claims outside Court of Federal Claims' jurisdiction |
| Challenge to IRS offset of tax refund under DCIA/statutes | Baker contends offset/garnishment was wrongful | Government: DCIA provisions are not money-mandating; administrative offset authorized | Dismissed — statutory provisions are not money-mandating for this Court |
| Breach of NSA (failure to place/reinstate) | Baker says Army breached NSA by not placing him in the job | Government: NSA conditioned placement on suitability; remedy was non-monetary and Baker didn’t follow NSA dispute process | Dismissed — Court lacks jurisdiction because NSA’s placement remedy is non-monetary and no money-mandating provision is before the Court; alternatively, Baker failed to plead breach given his conviction made him unsuitable |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (defines money‑mandating test for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Higbie v. United States, 778 F.3d 990 (Fed. Cir.) (contract jurisdiction requires money‑mandating source)
- Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (settlement remedies in employment disputes typically non‑monetary)
- McNeil v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 211 (Fed. Cl.) (statutory provisions authorizing administrative offset are not money‑mandating here)
- Mata v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 92 (Fed. Cl.) (NSA lacking money‑mandating provision defeats jurisdiction)