Cosner v. United States, 16-957

Background

Howard E. Cosner, a former VA employee, entered a March 13, 2008 settlement with the VA resolving EEO/ADEA claims; the agreement included a lump-sum payment, removal of negative records, neutral references for two years, and Cosner’s irrevocable resignation and promise not to seek VA employment.
In March–June 2010 Cosner sought Congresswoman Kosmas’s help about re-employment; the VA replied that the settlement precluded his future employment, and Cosner filed an EEO complaint alleging breach of the settlement’s confidentiality terms.
The VA rejected Cosner’s 2010 breach complaint, reasoning Cosner himself applied for re-employment (breaching the settlement), and therefore the VA had no obligation to perform; EEOC Office of Federal Operations upheld the VA decision and denied reconsideration.
Cosner sued in federal district court (Middle District of Florida) seeking rescission of the settlement, damages for breach, and damages for discrimination; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (Title VII/ADEA claims belong in district court procedures).
In June 2014 Cosner submitted three administrative claims to the VA/FTCA: (1) payment for a “money-saving” idea, (2) reinstatement and back pay, and (3) restitution/compensation for alleged criminal acts in the EEO handling; the VA denied all three.
Cosner filed in the Court of Federal Claims seeking (a) a declaration that the VA ‘‘abandoned’’ the settlement (ordering the VA to adopt its August 4, 2010 determination) and (b) $650,000 in damages based on his June 2014 claims. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the court granted the motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Federal Claims can order affirmative non‑monetary relief (declare VA abandoned settlement)	Cosner asks the court to declare the VA abandoned the settlement and compel the VA to adopt that determination	Gov't: CFC lacks power to grant affirmative non‑monetary relief except as ancillary to a money judgment under the Tucker Act	Court: No jurisdiction to grant standalone non‑monetary relief; dismissal granted
Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction exists for Cosner’s money claims (settlement breach, back pay, reinstatement)	Cosner seeks monetary relief tied to alleged abandonment of the settlement (reinstatement, back pay, damages)	Gov't: No money‑mandating statute or contractual monetary obligation identified; claims barred if they sound in equitable relief or are untethered to Tucker Act sources	Court: No identified money‑mandating source; Tucker Act jurisdiction not met
Whether any monetary claims are time‑barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501	Cosner treats August 4, 2010 VA determination as the triggering event and seeks relief for events since then	Gov't: Any claim arising from August 4, 2010 would be time‑barred by the six‑year Tucker Act statute of limitations	Court: Even if a money claim existed, claims arising from the 2010 event would be barred by § 2501
Whether tort/FTCA claims can be heard in Court of Federal Claims	Cosner characterized some claims as crimes/fraud/negligence in handling EEO matters and invoked FTCA remedies	Gov't: Tort and FTCA claims are outside CFC jurisdiction and must proceed under FTCA in district court	Court: CFC lacks jurisdiction over tort/FTCA claims; such claims are not cognizable here

Key Cases Cited

Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional waiver; plaintiff must identify separate substantive source for money damages)
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires a separate money‑mandating source of substantive law)
Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (Title VII settlement breach may support CFC jurisdiction only if agreement supports inference of entitlement to money damages)
James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573 (Fed. Cir.) (CFC cannot grant affirmative non‑monetary relief unless tied to a money judgment)
Shoshone Indian Tribe of Wind River Reservation v. United States, 672 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir.) (§ 2501 six‑year limitations period is jurisdictional under the Tucker Act)
Robleto v. United States, [citation="634 F. App'x 306"] (Fed. Cir.) (FTCA claims are outside Court of Federal Claims' jurisdiction)