Baker v. United States
711 F. App'x 982
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Baker resigned from his Army position in 2008 after admitting he drank alcohol before work; he later sued the Army alleging racial discrimination and breach of a subsequent settlement agreement.
- On August 11, 2009, Baker and the Army signed a settlement agreement promising a time-limited WG-5803-08 appointment effective no later than September 14, 2009, conditioned on Baker meeting physical and suitability requirements.
- Baker was arrested on felony domestic-battery charges and incarcerated until October 26, 2009; he ultimately pled to a misdemeanor in December 2009 and received probation in December 2010.
- Army HR could not reach Baker before the September 14 start date; after learning of the pending felony charge, the Army deemed him unsuitable under its suitability procedures and declined to hire him pending disposition of the criminal case.
- Baker sued in the Court of Federal Claims alleging breach of contract among other claims; most were dismissed, but the court (and this court on interlocutory review) allowed the breach claim to proceed to the merits on remand.
- On remand the Claims Court granted summary judgment for the government, finding the Agreement conditioned employment on meeting suitability standards and that pending criminal charges rendered Baker unsuitable; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Army breached the settlement agreement by refusing to hire Baker | Baker argued the earlier remand required judgment for him and that the Army wrongfully withheld the promised job | Army argued the Agreement conditioned hiring on meeting suitability requirements and Baker’s pending criminal charges made him unsuitable and unavailable by the start date | Court held no breach: Army lawfully withheld employment based on suitability rules tied to pending criminal charges and Agreement terms |
| Whether the Army’s unsuitability determination complied with governing law | Baker challenged the application of 5 C.F.R. § 731.202 | Government argued suitability determinations may consider criminal or dishonest conduct and pending charges justify unsuitability until disposition | Court held the Army’s determination was lawful under delegated OPM standards (5 C.F.R. § 731.202) |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on remand | Baker contended remand required his summary judgment win | Government argued material facts undisputed and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Court held summary judgment for government appropriate because key facts undisputed and law supported withholding employment |
| Whether Baker’s unavailability (incarceration/probation) barred contract performance | Baker disputed applicability | Government asserted incarceration/probation made him unavailable to begin work by the agreed date | Court affirmed government entitlement on suitability grounds and declined to rely on availability ruling, but found availability argument unnecessary to decide outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Amergen Energy Co. v. United States, 779 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. Richardson, 232 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
- Dairyland Power Coop. v. United States, 16 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir.) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Baker v. United States, [citation="642 F. App'x 989"] (Fed. Cir.) (remanded breach-of-contract claim for merits review)
- Baker v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 203 (Ct. Cl.) (prior dismissal of claims for lack of jurisdiction)
- Baker v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 62 (Ct. Cl.) (Claims Court decision granting government summary judgment)