Christian v. United States
131 Fed. Cl. 134
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Tatiana Christian, a GS-14 NASA employee at Johnson Space Center (JSC), was detailed to NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance Headquarters (OSMA HQ) in D.C. under a Feb. 21, 2010 MOU that contemplated an initial three‑month detail extendable by agreement.
- Christian filed an EEO complaint (Sept. 21, 2011) alleging discrimination; the parties settled on Nov. 18, 2011. The settlement required NASA to perform a legal review on entitlement to per diem and, if owed, pay per diem and related travel/movement-of-goods reimbursements in accordance with FTR/NASA rules.
- NASA’s legal review concluded Christian was entitled to per diem; NASA calculated an amount of $11,638.39, presented an SF‑1164 to her on June 29, 2012, but Christian refused to sign, disputing calculation details and the start date of her detail.
- Christian pursued administrative appeals through NASA and the EEOC (through 2016) and then filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims (May 6, 2016) alleging breach of the settlement and seeking greater per diem, travel reimbursements, tax reimbursements, a late payment fee, and a second salary for ‘double duties.’
- The Government moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court denied dismissal but granted summary judgment for the Government on all claims and denied Christian leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement and amount of per diem/miscellaneous reimbursements | Christian says FTR/NPR entitle her to more than NASA’s $11,638.39 calculation (seeks ~$14,636.40 or higher) | NASA calculated per diem using EDTY rules (65% of max after 120 days), miscellaneous items, offsets for prior payments, and proper tax withholding, totaling $11,638.39 | Court accepted NASA’s calculations and granted summary judgment for Government; Christian failed to produce probative contrary evidence |
| Start date of detail (Jan. 25, 2010 v. Feb. 1, 2010) — affects per diem days | Christian proffers an email stating she "started a detail" Jan. 25, 2010 and travel logs with claimed payments | NASA relies on signed MOU (Feb. 21, 2010) showing start date Feb. 1, 2010 (or earliest possible), and contemporaneous emails corroborating Feb. 1 | Dispute material but not genuine; MOU and contemporaneous emails preclude Jan. 25 start; no amendment allowed as futile |
| Reimbursement for relocation travel and excess baggage (constructive voucher method) | Christian seeks additional travel and baggage/personal‑belongings reimbursements for Feb 2010 and Feb–Mar 2011 relocations | NASA used FTR/NPR constructive‑voucher method (airfare + taxi + baggage up to 350 lbs) as ceiling, offset prior reimbursements, and included excess baggage in voucher | Court held NASA followed NPR; Christian’s inconsistent receipts and lack of legal support failed to create a genuine dispute; summary judgment for Government |
| Tax treatment (EDTY taxable status, WTA/ETTRA, and related reimbursements) | Christian argues the assignment should be treated as taxable EDTY for the entire detail and seeks WTA/ETTRA reimbursements | NASA contends it could not have "recognized" the assignment would exceed one year until Feb. 1, 2011 per MOU; WTA/ETTRA rules depend on when agency recognizes >1 year and WTA/ETTRA mechanics limit reimbursements and do not cover FICA/Medicare | Court held recognition date is governed by the MOU; no genuine dispute; NASA entitled to judgment; amendment futile |
| Late payment fee under FTR §301‑52.19 | Christian claims NASA failed to reimburse within 30 days of a proper claim and so owes late payment fee | NASA says Christian never submitted a proper, signed claim (she refused the SF‑1164 and disputed amount), and settlement required agency to calculate first | Court held no proper claim was submitted; late fee not owed; summary judgment for Government |
| Second salary / Dual Compensation Act claim | Christian seeks salary for alleged ‘working two jobs’ while detailed (additional ~$144,098) | NASA invokes Dual Compensation Act and case law: appointment and appropriation required; no SF‑50/52 or authority to pay second salary; additional pay would be time‑based salary not exempt fee | Court held Dual Compensation Act bars double salary here; plaintiff’s requested relief not permitted; amendment futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (explaining Tucker Act jurisdiction requires an independent substantive source of money‑mandating right)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (party must identify substantive source to invoke Tucker Act)
- Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (breach of contract claims fall within Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard — plausibility requirement)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard re: materiality and genuine dispute)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens of production)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (evaluating evidence in summary judgment)
- Kemin Foods, L.C. v. Pigmentos Vegetales Del Centro S.A. de C.V., 464 F.3d 1339 (futility standard for leave to amend)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (factors for granting leave to amend)
- Wilson v. American Trans Air, Inc., 874 F.2d 386 (amendment futile if cannot survive summary judgment)
- Horner v. Acosta, 803 F.2d 687 (appointment requirement to hold a federal position and receive pay)
- Puglisi v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 86 (Dual Compensation Act prohibits receiving basic pay from more than one full‑time position)
- Sweats Fashion, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560 (nonmovant may not rest on pleadings to resist summary judgment)