Larry D. Tallacus v. United States
113 Fed. Cl. 149
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Plaintiff (IHS employee) settled a 1997 Title VII District Court case by agreement placing him as a GS‑11 CHSO with a sum certain; later RIF moved him to Accounting Technician though he kept GS‑11 pay.
- Plaintiff filed MSPB appeal (unsuccessful), then a 2008 District Court action alleging Title VII, breach of the settlement, and retaliation; the District Court dismissed the breach‑of‑contract claim for lack of jurisdiction.
- In 2010 Plaintiff sued in the Court of Federal Claims for breach of the Settlement Agreement and, in an amended complaint, for an Equal Pay Act claim (FLSA) alleging pay disparity with female CHSOs.
- The Government moved to dismiss the breach claim under 28 U.S.C. §1500; the Court of Federal Claims dismissed breach under §1500 but did not decide the FLSA claim.
- Senior Judge Margolis stayed the case pending Federal Circuit guidance; after reassignment, the Government filed a consent motion to lift the stay and transfer the FLSA claim to the District Court under 28 U.S.C. §1631.
- The court lifted the stay but denied transfer, holding the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear the FLSA (Equal Pay Act) claim because the FLSA waives sovereign immunity and permits suits in “any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's FLSA/Equal Pay Act claim | Tallacus: FLSA claim is properly before this court (alleging money damages against the U.S.) | Government: FLSA is a comprehensive remedial statute that displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction; transfer to District Court under §1631 is appropriate | Court: FLSA expressly waives sovereign immunity and permits suits in any court of competent jurisdiction; CFC has jurisdiction to hear the FLSA claim |
| Whether the case should be transferred to the District Court under 28 U.S.C. §1631 | Tallacus: prefers merits in this court (implicitly) | Government: consented to transfer because CFC lacks jurisdiction over FLSA as displaced by FLSA's remedial scheme | Court: Denied transfer; lifted stay but retained the FLSA claim in CFC |
| Whether §1500 deprives the CFC of jurisdiction over the FLSA claim | Tallacus: FLSA claim arises from post‑July 4, 2010 events distinct from earlier District Court suit | Government: previously argued §1500 could bar the breach claim | Court: §1500 does not divest jurisdiction over the FLSA claim because the operative facts differ and claims are not "for or in respect to" the same claim |
| Whether Bormes and related precedent foreclose CFC jurisdiction whenever a statute has a remedial scheme | Tallacus: not directly argued; relies on FLSA waiver and forum provision | Government: invoked Bormes to argue detailed remedial statutes displace Tucker Act | Court: Bormes requires looking to the statute's terms; because FLSA authorizes suits in any federal or state court, Bormes does not bar CFC jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012) (Supreme Court held that when a statute contains its own remedial scheme, courts must look to that statute to determine sovereign‑immunity waiver and whether Tucker Act is displaced)
- Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 133 S. Ct. 2053 (2013) (Supreme Court instructed courts to consider a statute's purpose, text, and review structure when deciding whether Tucker Act jurisdiction is withdrawn)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not itself create substantive money‑damages rights)
- El‑Sheikh v. United States, 177 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (FLSA contains an express waiver of sovereign immunity permitting federal employees to sue the United States)
- King v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 396 (2013) (Court of Federal Claims held FLSA’s forum provision permits suits in the CFC and does not automatically displace Tucker Act jurisdiction)