Baker v. United States
15-343
| Fed. Cl. | Mar 22, 2017Background
- Baker, a limited-term Army hire, settled a 2009 racial discrimination claim with an Agreement promising a time-limited appointment as a Heavy Mobile Equipment Repairer effective no later than Sept. 14, 2009, contingent on meeting physical and "all suitability" requirements.
- One week after the settlement, Baker was arrested on felony domestic-violence-related charges and remained in custody until Oct. 26, 2009. He later pled guilty to a misdemeanor and received 12 months probation.
- Army HR sought to complete hiring; during the November 2009 medical/suitability process Baker disclosed pending criminal charges on the Declaration of Federal Employment (Form 306).
- Army policy and 5 C.F.R. § 731.202 provide that pending criminal charges render an applicant unsuitable until disposition; the Army informed Baker he was unsuitable based on those charges.
- Baker sued in the Court of Federal Claims alleging multiple claims; after dismissals and an appeal, the Federal Circuit remanded only the breach-of-contract claim, holding the Agreement could be read as money-mandating.
- On remand the Government moved for summary judgment; the Court considered whether (1) pending criminal charges made Baker unsuitable and (2) Baker was available to perform the Travel Division job by the September 14, 2009 date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baker's admission of pending criminal charges rendered him unsuitable under the Agreement | Baker: pending charges do not by themselves make him unsuitable if physically able to perform the work | Government: Army may deem pending criminal charges a suitability disqualifier per regulation and Army policy | Held: Pending charges rendered Baker unsuitable; Army properly applied suitability rules |
| Whether Baker was available to perform the position by Sept. 14, 2009 | Baker: disputes are immaterial because he was physically available per medical records | Government: Baker was incarcerated and later on probation, preventing overseas travel required by Travel Division; thus unavailable | Held: Baker was unavailable to perform contemplated employment by the contractual date due to incarceration/probation |
| Whether the Agreement required consideration of non-physical suitability requirements | Baker: Agreement should be read to require only physical ability | Government: Agreement expressly conditions appointment on meeting "all suitability requirements," which includes non-physical factors | Held: Court rejects Baker's reading; suitability and physical requirements are distinct and both apply |
| Entitlement to summary judgment based on Federal Circuit remand | Baker: remand entitles him to summary judgment on breach | Government: remand only required further merits consideration; does not mandate judgment for Baker | Held: Federal Circuit decision did not entitle Baker to summary judgment; summary judgment denied for Baker and granted for Government |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment materiality and standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (no genuine issue when record cannot support nonmovant)
- Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (standard for granting summary judgment)
- Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (canon on construing linked contract terms)
- Haddon Housing Assocs., LLC v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 311 (condition precedent doctrine in government contract context)
- Baker v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 203 (earlier Court of Federal Claims opinion addressing jurisdiction and claims)