Outlaw v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 656

Background

Plaintiff James F. Outlaw (pro se) and the Army executed a July 27, 2011 Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) resolving an EEOC discrimination complaint; the NSA provided a lump-sum payment, reversal of a February 18, 2011 removal, and other personnel-file actions in exchange for withdrawal of claims and voluntary retirement effective November 1, 2010.
The NSA included a dispute process: plaintiff must notify the Army EEO office and, if unsatisfied, may appeal to the EEOC; the NSA also stated the complainant's "sole remedy" for alleged agency breach is to request implementation of the settlement terms (no express money-damages remedy).
Plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims alleging (1) errors in MSPB initial decisions and a final MSPB order, (2) that the July 27, 2011 NSA is invalid/fraudulent/coerced, and (3) breach of the NSA seeking reinstatement and money damages.
MSPB issued initial decisions and a Final Order denying plaintiff's challenges to the NSA; the Federal Circuit dismissed plaintiff's later petition as untimely.
Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing the NSA does not mandate money damages and the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) lacks jurisdiction to review MSPB decisions or tort/fraud claims.
The court granted the motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CFC may review MSPB initial decisions or the MSPB Final Order	Outlaw sought the CFC to review MSPB decisions and declare them erroneous	The CFC lacks jurisdiction to review MSPB decisions; review lies with the Federal Circuit	Dismissed — CFC has no jurisdiction to review MSPB initial or final orders
Whether the CFC may adjudicate claims that the July 27, 2011 NSA is invalid/fraudulent/coerced	Outlaw contends the NSA is invalid or procured by fraud/coercion and asks the CFC to declare it void	Defendant: such claims were raised to MSPB; CFC lacks jurisdiction and fraud/tort claims are outside Tucker Act	Dismissed — claim to invalidate NSA is barred: MSPB/Federal Circuit review controls, and fraud/coercion claims sound in tort (no Tucker Act jurisdiction)
Whether a breach-of-contract claim based on the NSA gives the CFC jurisdiction (i.e., whether NSA is money-mandating)	Outlaw argues the NSA contains provisions directing payment and thus contemplates money damages	Defendant argues the NSA expressly limits the sole remedy to implementation (non-monetary) and disavows money damages, so the Tucker Act waiver does not apply	Dismissed — NSA language precludes a fair interpretation that it contemplates money damages; thus no Tucker Act jurisdiction
Whether plaintiff's pro se status relaxes jurisdictional requirements	Outlaw is pro se and the pleadings should be liberally construed	Defendant: pro se status does not relieve burden to establish jurisdiction	Held: Pro se pleadings are liberally construed but plaintiff still must meet jurisdictional requirements; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards)
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178 (burden to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived)
Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (settlement agreements resolving Title VII claims may support Tucker Act jurisdiction only if they fairly contemplate money damages)
Rick's Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir.) (government consent to suit under Tucker Act does not extend to every contract)
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir.) (rescission is equitable relief; CFC cannot grant equitable relief absent a money-mandating claim)
Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir.) (jurisdictional facts taken as true; court may decide jurisdiction on face of pleadings)