Britt II v. United States, 24-1519

James Edward Britt II, a former FDIC employee, accepted a lower-grade position (grade-11) in 2018 while retaining his higher (grade-12) salary, agreeing to 24 months of limited eligibility for a salary increase if re-promoted.
In 2020, FDIC revised its re-promotion policy to extend the restriction on salary increases after accepting a lower grade from 24 months to 48 months.
Britt was re-promoted to grade 12 after 38 months but, under the new 48-month rule, did not receive a pay increase he believed he was due.
Britt filed suit, arguing that the FDIC breached a contract by applying the updated 48-month policy rather than the original 24-month limit in his "voluntary change to lower grade statement."
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed all Britt's claims except the contract claim, which it transferred to the Court of Federal Claims.
The government moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the Court of Federal Claims granted the motion and dismissed all claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of Contractual Relationship	Britt claims the “voluntary change to lower grade statement” created a binding contract capping the re-promotion restriction at 24 months.	U.S. asserts federal employment is via appointment, not contract; thus, no enforceable contract exists.	No contract exists; relationship was by appointment, so no breach-of-contract claim is possible.
Due Process Claim	Alleged that denial of salary increase without due process was unlawful.	Court lacks jurisdiction over due process claims under the Tucker Act.	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Unlawful Taking Claim	Alleged unlawful or unauthorized taking of compensation (wages).	Such claims must concede validity of government action for this court's jurisdiction; this claim does not.	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Back Pay Act Claim	Implied back pay was due for the period affected by the 48-month rule.	The Back Pay Act does not apply to reclassification actions like Britt's.	Back Pay Act provides no remedy in this context.

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not itself create a cause of action for money damages)
Hamlet v. United States, 63 F.3d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (federal employment is by appointment, not contract)
Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must identify a substantive right to money damages apart from the Tucker Act)
LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (no jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims for due process claims)
Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States, 10 F.3d 796 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (takings claims must concede validity of government action under the Tucker Act)