Cunningham v. United States
108 Fed. Cl. 208
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Cunningham, a probationary federal employee, was terminated from OPM during his first year and appealed to MSPB.
- During the MSPB proceedings, the parties settled on October 27, 2005; Cunningham agreed to withdraw the MSPB appeal with prejudice and OPM would modify and limit references in personnel records.
- Settlement terms included replacing a termination SF-50 with a resignation SF-50, removing a December 2004 termination letter and Cunningham’s response, confidentiality, and a $50,000 payment by the government.
- OPM designated the Director of Human Resources as the sole contact for employment inquiries and restricted disclosures related to Cunningham’s employment history.
- In July 2006 Cunningham accepted a position with USIS; subsequent background clearances involving OPM led to discovery of the pre-settlement termination and related disclosures.
- In March 2008 Cunningham petitioned MSPB to enforce the settlement; MSPB administrative judge found OPM breached the settlement and recommended enforcement, which MSPB later adopted before dismissing the underlying appeal as settled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over breach claim | Cunningham argues Tucker Act permits money damages for breach of MSPB settlement. | CSRA/MSPB exclusive jurisdiction bars such claims in this court. | Court has jurisdiction under Tucker Act but ultimately dismisses on res judicata. |
| CSRA exclusivity and MSPB settlement enforcement | Holmes allows money damages for breach of settlement agreements arising from Title VII, extending to MSPB context. | MSPB exclusive scheme precludes this court from handling MSPB settlement breaches. | CSRA does not categorically bar this court; Holmes applies by analogy to MSPB settlements. |
| Res judicata precludes action | MSPB enforcement proceedings not final merits judgment; facts differ, remedies differ. | MSPB enforcement decision is a final judgment on the merits and the actions share the same transactional facts. | Action barred by res judicata; the MSPB enforcement involved the same breach and same transactional facts. |
| Same transaction or claim in MSPB and this court | This suit is a separate money-damages claim based on breach, distinct from MSPB’s relief. | Remedies sought do not change the fact that breach claim arises from the same contract and facts as MSPB action. | Claims are based on the same transactional facts as the MSPB enforcement and thus barred. |
| Relief scope and non-merits review | Relief can be monetary damages, not merely review of MSPB action. | Reviewing breach would require examining underlying personnel action, which MSPB governs. | Even if jurisdiction exists, the claim fails on res judicata grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (settlement agreements not per se beyond Tucker Act; must show money damages can be anticipated)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (enforcement of settlement agreement has independent jurisdiction separate from underlying claim)
- Massie v. United States, 166 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (damages can be sought under Tucker Act when breach and underlying action are distinct)
- Bobula v. U.S. Department of Justice, 970 F.2d 854 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (CSRA integration does not automatically bar all contract actions; context matters)
- Fausto v. United States, 484 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988) (CSRA creates integrated review scheme for personnel actions; MSPB exclusive jurisdiction over many disputes)
- Greco v. Department of the Army, 852 F.2d 558 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (settlement agreements are contracts and may fall under Tucker Act jurisdiction)