931 F. Supp. 2d 238
D.D.C.2013Background
- Kriesch, an African-American USDA employee, settled her Title VII action with the Secretary in August 2009, receiving $220,000, a GS-15, step 6 promotion for three years, and an IPA detail to the University of Maryland (UMD) under a three-year term ending August 31, 2012.
- Settlement included an Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignment detailing Kriesch as APHIS Liaison to UMD, with a described adjunct/lecturer status and duties to support USDA interests at UM College of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
- A Memorandum of Understanding between USDA/APHIS and UMD complemented the settlement, permitting UM policies to govern Kriesch’s liaison appointment so long as not conflicting with federal rules.
- Post-settlement, Kriesch disputed the implementation, notably that the University would not grant Adjunct Professor status without a terminal degree, instead listing her as Lecturer, and that a Plant Protection Center at UM existed or would be funded.
- In late 2011–early 2012, disputes escalated over IPA extensions; Kriesch declined to sign a proposed IPA extension; USDA issued Letters of Instruction directing her to resume duties and sign an IPA extension, and Kriesch corresponded with allegations of noncompliance and harassment.
- Kriesch filed a motion to enforce the settlement in November 2012; USDA opposed enforcement, leading to the court’s decision denying enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was failure to grant Adjunct Professor title a material breach? | Kriesch argues title was essential to the settlement benefits. | USDA contends title was governed by UM policies and not guaranteed; failure to grant title was non-material. | Not a material breach |
| Was the absence of a Plant Protection Center at UM a material breach? | Center’s existence/funding was central to the bargain. | Center was not a vital term; duties were broader and the Center’s existence was not essential. | Not a material breach |
| Did any breach, if proven, excuse Kriesch from the three-year IPA and reinstate her claims? | Breaches affected fundamental purposes of the agreement. | No material breach occurred; the agreement allowed termination by either party; no rescission warranted. | No material breach; no rescission |
| Did USDA/UMD’s control over titles and funding undermine the enforceability of the settlement? | USDA should have ensured the promised structure or arranged alternatives. | University policies govern titles; USDA cannot override UM policy; the deal was to provide employment, not a guaranteed title. | Not a material issue; contract terms reasonably satisfied |
| Should the court enforce the settlement as written or permit reformation based on implied changes in practice? | Enforcement should reflect the bargain Kriesch believed she had. | No grounds for reformation; performance complied with the settlement’s core purpose. | Court refused enforcement; no grounds for reform |
Key Cases Cited
- America v. Mills, 714 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D.D.C. 2010) (material breach analysis for settlement enforcement)
- America II, 714 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C. 2010) (breach must relate to vital contract terms)
- America I, 468 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2006) (factors for material breach analysis)
- Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Bender, 595 F. Supp. 1209 (D.D.C. 1984) (materiality factors in contract breach)
- Cuneo Law Group, P.C. v. Joseph, 669 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2009) (contract performance and material breach analysis)