Demons v. United States
119 Fed. Cl. 345
| Fed. Cl. | 2014Background
- Seven named plaintiffs (DeMons) are current/former VA General Schedule health-care workers who claim VA failed to pay 25% Saturday "additional pay" under 38 U.S.C. § 7454(b)(3) when they used authorized paid leave for Saturday shifts (post‑July 1, 2012).
- The claim mirrors earlier Adams litigation, which covered pre‑July 1, 2012 conduct and resulted in class certification, summary judgment for plaintiffs on liability, and a settlement.
- DeMons filed to certify an opt‑in class under RCFC 23 seeking back pay and interest for similar post‑2012 violations; the Government defended on manageability and individualized proof grounds.
- Central factual dispute narrowed: liability on the statutory interpretation was effectively resolved by Adams; DeMons focuses on class certification and whether damages/identification can be computed centrally.
- Plaintiffs proposed using government payroll records and algorithmic analysis to identify class members and compute damages; they sought appointment of Ira M. Lechner as class counsel.
- The Court granted class certification, finding numerosity, commonality (including predominance), typicality, adequacy, and superiority satisfied; it adopted a detailed opt‑in class definition and appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / money‑mandating source | Statute 38 U.S.C. § 7454(b)(3) provides money‑mandating right to recover unpaid additional pay | No current challenge to jurisdiction | Jurisdiction proper; plaintiffs identified money‑mandating statutory source |
| Numerosity (RCFC 23(a)(1)) | Class exceeds 1,000 members; joinder impracticable | Agreed numerous but argued class would be unmanageable | Numerosity satisfied (figure >1,000 accepted) |
| Commonality / predominance (RCFC 23(a)(2), (b)(3)) | A common legal question exists (systematic VA policy withholding Saturday premium pay when leave used); damages and identification can be calculated from centralized payroll records | Liability already decided in Adams so remaining issues are individualized; damages require individual proofs (schedules, leave taken, facility practices) making class unmanageable | Common question exists and predominates; individualized damages calculable from centralized records; prior adjudication of liability does not defeat commonality |
| Typicality, adequacy, and superiority (RCFC 23(a)(3),(a)(4),(b)(3)) | Named plaintiffs share the same essential claim and counsel is qualified; opt‑in procedure and centralized payroll records make class manageable and superior to thousands of separate suits | Named plaintiffs are few and geographically limited; job duties and policies vary; prospective members may not wish to opt in | Typicality and adequacy met; class action is superior and manageable (opt‑in mitigates representation concerns); court appointed class counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional but does not create substantive money‑mandating rights)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (plaintiff must identify independent money‑mandating source for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974) (class‑certification inquiry focuses on Rule 23 criteria, not merits)
- Curry v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 328 (2008) (prior summary adjudication of liability does not foreclose common questions for class certification)
- Barnes v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 492 (2005) (system‑wide government pay practice supports commonality and class certification)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (court must determine whether statute or regulation is money‑mandating)
- Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (discussion of RCFC 23 opt‑in difference from FRCP 23)
- Adams v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 563 (2010) (prior class certification and liability determination on VA Saturday premium pay pre‑July 2012)