McDell v. Department of the Army
683 F. App'x 940
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Doretha McDell, an Army Contract Procurement Analyst, filed an individual right of action alleging retaliation for whistleblowing disclosures to multiple oversight bodies on April 3, 2014.
- An ALJ initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Board remanded after finding McDell made nonfrivolous contributing-factor allegations.
- On October 31, 2016, McDell and the Army executed a negotiated settlement agreement; the ALJ dismissed the appeal on November 1, 2016, finding the agreement freely reached and resolving all disputes.
- McDell appealed the Board’s dismissal, arguing she was coerced into settling, remained in hostile working conditions, and received no monetary relief (which she sought under whistleblower statutes).
- The Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Board abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal based on the settlement and whether the settlement was involuntary, unlawful, or the product of fraud or mutual mistake.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement was involuntary/coerced | McDell says she was forced to settle and stay in hostile conditions with no monetary relief | Army says settlement was freely and voluntarily negotiated and contained no promise of monetary relief | Settlement was freely entered; bare coercion allegations insufficient to set aside it |
| Whether agency was required to pay monetary relief under settlement | McDell contends agency refused to pay back pay and compensatory damages under WPA/WPEA | Army argues Board had not found contributing factor or ordered corrective action and settlement did not promise money | Because no Board-ordered corrective action existed and settlement made no monetary promises, agency had no obligation to pay |
| Whether the settlement resolved McDell’s whistleblower claims | McDell argues claims were not resolved by settlement | Army points to settlement language releasing all claims and dismissing appeal with prejudice | Court held settlement’s explicit terms resolved all disputed issues and claims, so dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleaton v. Dep’t of Justice, 839 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (standards for appellate review of MSPB decisions)
- Foreman v. Dep’t of Army, 241 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (settlement agreement construction reviewed de novo)
- Asberry v. U.S. Postal Serv., 692 F.2d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (Board’s dismissal based on settlement reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Sargent v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 229 F.3d 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (grounds for setting aside settlement: unlawful, involuntary, fraud, or mutual mistake)
- Tiburzi v. Dep’t of Justice, 269 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (mere allegation of coercion insufficient to void settlement)