114 Fed. Cl. 736
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- Plaintiff Florentino Mata, a former Army engineer, sues the United States alleging breach of a June 20, 2007 Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) arising from his EEO complaint.
- NSA paragraph 3 required an independent review of Mata’s 2006 performance evaluation and August 11, 2006 reprimand, with 3a mandating the review and potential awards, and 4a giving final determination to the Chief of Staff, USARSO.
- Col. Casias conducted the independent review and recommended upgrading the 2006 evaluation to Level 2 and removing the 2006 reprimand; he also recommended a quick lateral transfer, if possible.
- CPAC and USARSO HR forwarded vacancy lists (October 2007) to CPAC for qualification determinations; Reiser concluded there were no equivalent engineer vacancies Mata qualified for.
- Col. Phelan concluded no unencumbered vacant equivalent engineer position existed and Mata remained in his current position; Mata was later removed from federal service in 2008 after misconduct events in 2007–2008.
- Plaintiff pursued EEO/EEOC proceedings and later filed suit in this court; defendant moved to dismiss or resolve cross motions, with jurisdiction analyzed under the Tucker Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Army breach NSA paragraph 3a by not upgrading to Level 2? | Mata contends 3a required upgrading per Casias' recommendation. | 3a only requires an independent review; final upgrade is not mandatory. | No breach; upgrade to Level 3 complied with 3a and 4a. |
| Did Army breach NSA paragraph 3b by not considering Mata for an equivalent position? | Army failed to consider Mata for any equivalent position as required by 3b. | Ambiguity exists in 3b; whether 'equivalent position' means engineer position or any equivalent role; requires extrinsic evidence. | Summary judgment not possible; issue is unresolved; stay proceedings to address 3b ambiguity. |
| Did Army breach NSA paragraph 3c by using the August 2011 reprimand to support removal? | 3c requires nullifying pre-signing actions, so 2011 reprimand should have been voided. | 3c is subordinate to 3a and 4a; removal rationale is governed by those provisions. | No breach; NSA interpreted to remove pre-signing actions only during pendency of review; 3c not violated. |
| Can Mata recover damages if the NSA was breached? | Damages including lost wages and other relief flow from breach. | Damages must be proven causally and foreseeably linked to breach; issue is not yet amenable to summary disposition. | Damages issue stays; merits to be addressed after further proceedings. |
| Is there subject-matter jurisdiction to hear fraud or bad-faith allegations tied to the NSA? | Alleges fraud in representing NSA compliance and bad faith by Army. | Fraud sounds in tort, which this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate; bad-faith claims not ripe. | Count II fraud dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; bad-faith claim stayed pending 3b proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 877 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (basic elements of breach of contract claim)
- Coast Fed. Bank, FSB v. United States, 323 F.3d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (contract interpretation and plain language controls when unambiguous)
- Beta Sys., Inc. v. United States, 838 F.2d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (ambiguity and contract interpretation framework)
- Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States, 366 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (ambiguity and interpretation principles; contra proferentem as last resort)
- Granite Constr. Co. v. United States, 962 F.2d 998 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (interpret contract as a whole to give meaning to all parts)
- Hometown Fin., Inc. v. United States, 409 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (specific contract provisions control over general ones)
- TEG-Paradigm Envtl., Inc. v. United States, 465 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (ambiguous contracts may require extrinsic evidence; summary judgment may be inappropriate)
- Gardiner Kamya & Assocs., P.C. v. Jackson, 467 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (contra proferentem as last resort for unresolved ambiguities)
- Metro. Area Transit, Inc. v. United States, 463 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (extrinsic evidence appropriate when contract ambiguous)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (interpretation of agency actions and aviation regulation contracts)
- Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ( Holmes related discussion on money-mandating contracts)