Munoz v. Mabus
630 F.3d 856
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Munoz, a Naval Ship Repair Facility employee in Yokosuka, entered a February 28, 2002 predetermination settlement with the Navy to obtain career-enhancing training within 12 months in exchange for withdrawing his discrimination complaint.
- Munoz requested VLS training, but the Navy denied due to no vacancies, qualification gaps, and cost concerns, while sending him to other trainings that Munoz deemed career-enhancing.
- The Navy determined three of Munoz's trainings were sufficiently related to his duties, but Munoz contends the settlement entitles him specifically to VLS training.
- Munoz sought to enforce the settlement; EEOC processed the breach claim, ultimately finding no breach, and the EEOC decision was consolidated with Munoz's retaliation claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Navy on both Counts, later addressing jurisdiction over Count 1 and concluding Title VII provided jurisdiction for both counts.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated in part and remanded, affirming the retaliation judgment but holding Count 1 lacked jurisdiction under Title VII and dismissing it, with remand for dismissal, and addressing jurisdiction under Tucker Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count 1 is within district court jurisdiction | Munoz relied on Title VII to enforce a predetermination settlement. | No Title VII jurisdiction for enforcing predetermination settlements against the government. | Count 1 lacks federal subject-matter jurisdiction; dismiss required. |
| Proper regulatory/regulatory-context basis for enforcement | Regulations allow enforcement of predetermination settlements under Title VII. | Regulatory framework does not provide an independent Title VII remedy for enforcement. | No implied Title VII-based remedy; no jurisdiction for Count 1. |
| Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction is available for Count 1 | Contract-like claim against the United States fits Tucker Act concepts. | Count 1 is not properly framed under Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Tucker Act jurisdiction does not rescue Count 1; it remains nonjurisdictional. |
| Count 2 retaliation analysis | Navy's denial of VLS training was retaliatory for EEO activity. | Navy provided legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for denial (no vacancies, qualifications, cost). | Summary judgment upheld for retaliation; Munoz failed to show pretext. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (suit to enforce a settlement requires independent jurisdiction)
- Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (U.S. 1976) (Title VII's comprehensive remedy does not preclude other forums)
- EEOC v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1982) (precedent on enforcement of conciliation/settlement agreements)
- Taylor v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 532 (Fed. Cl. 2006) (Tucker Act jurisdiction over Title VII settlement agreements)
- Westover v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 635 (Fed. Cl. 2006) (Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over settlement actions)
- Hansson v. Norton, 411 F.3d 231 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (fee claims vs. Title VII jurisdiction; contract-like claims)