Beberman v. United States, 17-179

Beberman, a non-tenured Foreign Service employee at the State Department, alleges Equal Pay Act violations after being denied tenure and assorted overseas and Washington benefits following a separation order.
She claims a similarly situated male colleague who was also denied tenure received the contested benefits. She seeks back pay, liquidated damages, benefits, interest, and injunctive relief.
Beberman filed multiple related suits: a District of the Virgin Islands action (appealed to the Third Circuit), a prior CFC Equal Pay Act suit (dismissed under §1500), a second D.V.I. action (dismissed), and a pending D.D.C. action.
At filing here (Feb 6, 2017) Beberman’s Third Circuit appeal of the first D.V.I. action had a judgment entered (Jan 12, 2017) but its mandate had not yet issued (Mar 6, 2017).
The Government moved to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. §1500, arguing the Third Circuit appeal (and alternatively the second D.V.I. action) precluded CFC jurisdiction because the claims arise from the same operative facts.
The Court analyzed whether (1) an earlier suit was pending for §1500 purposes, and (2) the actions are “for or in respect to” the same claim, and GRANTED the Government’s motion, dismissing the complaint without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an earlier-filed appeal is "pending" under §1500 at time judgment is entered but before appellate mandate issues	Beberman: appeal is no longer pending once the appellate court enters judgment (Jan 12, 2017), so CFC suit filed Feb 6, 2017 was not barred	Gov: a case remains pending for §1500 until the mandate issues; therefore the Third Circuit matter was pending when Beberman filed in the CFC	Court: a decision on appeal is final for §1500 only when the appellate mandate issues; the Third Circuit appeal was pending when Beberman filed in CFC
Whether the claims in the Third Circuit appeal are "for or in respect to" the same claims here	Beberman did not dispute substantial factual overlap; focused instead on finality timing	Gov: both matters challenge the State Department’s post-tenure-denial directive to leave post and loss of benefits—same operative facts	Court: claims arise from the same set of operative facts and are therefore "for or in respect to" the Third Circuit claims; §1500 bars jurisdiction

United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307 (establishing that §1500 deprives the CFC of jurisdiction when a claim is pending elsewhere)
Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (explaining when a claim is "pending" for §1500 after district-court judgment and the significance of motions for reconsideration or notices of appeal)
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir.) (observing that a case remains pending until the appellate mandate issues)
Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir.) (discussing §1500 and the pending-suit inquiry)