Breen v. Tucker
821 F. Supp. 2d 375
D.D.C.2011Background
- Breen, a white male, was terminated from a temporary District of Columbia Department position in 1977 after a workplace altercation.
- Although the Department reinstated Breen in 1978, the reinstatement covered only the temporary position’s remaining NTE date and did not convert him to permanent status.
- In 1981, Breen prevailed in Title VII litigation, and the court ordered the District to reinstate him to a permanent position, provide back pay, and furnish fringe benefits, including retirement contributions, for the period of discriminatory unemployment.
- The 1981 Order required retirement contributions during Breen’s period of unemployment (approximately Feb. 26, 1977 to July 25, 1981).
- Breen retired in 1985; in 2005–2010 he sought to correct OPM records suggesting no retirement contributions for the disputed period, culminating in an OPM letter (Jan. 19, 2010) stating OPM could not locate documentation of Breen’s service for the period.
- In 2010–2011 Breen moved to enforce the judgment via contempt; the District argued laches and hearsay, and Breen argued the District failed to comply with the 1981 Order; the court allowed limited discovery and ultimately denied contempt, finding no proven violation of the 1981 Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Breen's motion is barred by laches | Breen acted diligently to enforce | Breen waited an unreasonable time | Not barred by laches |
| Whether the January 19, 2010 OPM letter is admissible | Letter supports noncompliance by District | Letter is hearsay/inadmissible | Court assumes admissible; still no violation proved |
| Whether the District violated the 1981 Order to make retirement contributions | District failed to make required contributions | Contribution records show District acted to comply | Breen failed to prove District violated the 1981 Order |
Key Cases Cited
- Gull Airborne Instruments, Inc. v. Weinberger, 694 F.2d 838 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (laches protects against stale claims and requires diligence and prejudice analysis)
- Pro Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 565 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (laches hinges on whether delay was inexcusably/delayed and prejudicial delay)
- Menominee Indian Tribe v. United States, 614 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (emphasizes diligence and prejudice in laches analysis)
- Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1946) (laches not a mere time bar but an unjustified delay)
- S.E.C. v. Bilzerian, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (civil contempt standard requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (civil contempt standard and burden of proof)