Eby v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 706
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- Eby (former NIH employee) and NIH entered a 2010 settlement resolving an EEO disability-discrimination claim; the agreement required NIH to provide a specified “neutral reference” and limited other information to prospective employers.
- In June 2010 NIH official Charles Hall spoke with an FDA hiring manager and discussed Eby beyond the negotiated neutral reference; Eby did not get the FDA job.
- Eby filed an EEOC retaliation claim in December 2011 alleging the reference interaction was retaliatory; an EEOC administrative judge ultimately ruled for Eby and the EEOC issued relief in March 2017.
- While the EEOC proceedings were pending, Eby sued in the Court of Federal Claims (May 2015) for breach of the 2010 settlement agreement seeking back pay, benefits, consequential damages, attorney’s fees, and taxes.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) (mootness) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), arguing the EEOC award rendered the contract claim moot and that some requested relief (e.g., fees) was not recoverable.
- The court denied the government’s motion, finding the case was not moot because (a) many items awarded by the EEOC had not actually been delivered, and (b) the EEOC award did not necessarily eliminate all relief the Court of Federal Claims could grant; the court also rejected the government’s premature challenge to Eby’s entitlement to fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / subject-matter jurisdiction | Eby argued her breach claim remains live because she has not received most EEOC-ordered relief; therefore the Court can still grant relief. | Government argued EEOC’s favorable final decision fully remedied the alleged breach so the CFC claim is moot. | Court: Not moot — EEOC award had not been actually and completely satisfied; potential relief remains available from this court. |
| Availability of contract jurisdiction | Eby asserted breach of the settlement (a contract) is within Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Government did not dispute jurisdictional basis but argued mootness abated jurisdiction. | Court: Settlement agreement is a contract; CFC has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act; mootness question is distinct. |
| Preclusive effect of EEOC decision | Eby contended EEOC findings do not eliminate her right to pursue contract damages here. | Government suggested EEOC adjudication covered same facts and remedies, implying dismissal. | Court: Preclusion not established — EEOC decision did not necessarily decide essential contract issues, and preclusion requires more than similar findings. |
| Attorney’s fees entitlement | Eby claimed fees recoverable (as part of relief) if she prevails. | Government argued EAJA and prevailing-party fee rules defeat fee claim because, if claim is mooted, she cannot be a prevailing party. | Court: Denied dismissal of fee claim at this stage — fee entitlement depends on future determination and is not properly resolved by a preemptive 12(b)(6) dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (mootness / complete eradication of effects requirement)
- VanDesande v. United States, 673 F.3d 1342 (settlement agreement claims fall within Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Hernandez v. Department of the Air Force, 498 F.3d 1328 (example where relief already received rendered claim moot)
- B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (issue preclusion principles applicable to agency determinations)
- Musick v. Department of Energy, 339 F.3d 1365 (settlement agreement is a contract)