Holmes v. United States, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18809

Holmes, a disabled Navy veteran, alleged the Navy breached two Title VII settlement agreements (1996 and 2001) arising from EEOC actions and a 2001 district-court action, seeking monetary damages under the Tucker Act.
1995 Agreement required expunging certain records and correcting OPF; 1996 Agreement provided employment and OPF documentation; 2001 Agreement mandated expungement of a fourteen-day suspension and neutral MIB reference.
Holmes learned in 2006 that the Navy had not fully comply with expungement; he later filed suit in 2009 in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages for breaches.
Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (money damages not clearly mandated) and for statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501, not applying accrual suspension.
This appeal argues Tucker Act jurisdiction exists because the agreements are money-mandating and that accrual suspension applies; the Federal Circuit reverses and remands.
Court ultimately holds that the settlement agreements can fairly be read to mandate money damages for breach and that Holmes is entitled to accrual-suspension relief, so jurisdiction lies and remand is appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction lies for breach of Title VII settlement agreements.	Holmes—contracts are money damages under Tucker Act.	Navy—no money-mandating terms; non-monetary remedies predominate.	Yes; jurisdiction exists as the agreements can fair-interpret to money damages.
Whether the 1996 and 2001 Agreements are money-mandating.	Contracts inherently permit money damages for breach.	No express money damages; EEOC relief is non-monetary.	Fair-interpretation supports money damages; money-mandating requirement satisfied.
Whether accrual-suspension tolling applies to the six-year limit.	Holmes entitled to accrual-suspension due to inherently unknowable breach.	No concealment or inherently unknowable breach; inquiry-notice began earlier.	Holmes entitled to accrual-suspension; suit timely under § 2501.
Whether the 2001 Agreement is a consent decree and affects jurisdiction.	Not a consent decree; jurisdiction remains with CFC.	Argues it is a consent decree and outside Tucker Act.	Not a consent decree; Tucker Act jurisdiction remains.
Whether the Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed for limitations before accrual suspensions.	Holmes filed within six years of reasonable knowledge date.	Lacked accrual-suspension applicability.	Reversed; accrual-suspension applies; case remanded.

Navajo Nation v. United States, 556 U.S. 287 (U.S. 2009) (money-mandating requires a fair reading of rights to damages under the source of law)
Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (cooperative agreements not money-mandating; CDA not applicable to implied-in-fact contracts)
Khan v. United States, 201 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (need substantive money-damages right to invoke Tucker Act)
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 537 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2003) (money-mandating standard requires fair inference of damages right)
Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (inquiry into money damages when source is statute)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (settlement vs. substantive rights distinction)
Massie v. United States, 166 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (contracts arising under government dispute fall within Tucker Act)
Del-Rio Drilling Programs Inc. v. United States, 146 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (contract claims may involve statutory interpretation; still Tucker Act jurisdiction)
L.S.S. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 695 F.2d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (inherently unknowable accrual suspension involves reasonableness consideration)
Roberts v. United States, 312 Fed. Appx. 340 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (construal of accrual suspension doctrine in context of government records)