Price v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 128
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff, an Air Force employee, accepted a temporary overseas assignment to Ramstein AB (2009) and signed an Overseas Employment Agreement entitling him to return to his prior position.
- While overseas plaintiff was promoted to Information Security Specialist (GS-0080-12); upon return in June 2012 he was placed back into his former Security Assistant (GS-0086-07) position and alleges retained-pay placement reduced his grade/pay.
- Plaintiff also alleges improper payment for extended temporary quarters subsistence and unequal per diem upon return.
- He sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking back pay and related compensation under the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, and asserted violation of 10 U.S.C. § 1586 for failure to place him in the upgraded position.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (RCFC 12(b)(1)); the court considered whether the cited statutes are money-mandating under the Tucker Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Back Pay Act alone establishes Tucker Act jurisdiction | Back Pay Act entitles him to corrective action/back pay for unjustified personnel actions | Back Pay Act is derivative, not money-mandating by itself | Dismissed: Back Pay Act alone is not money-mandating; jurisdiction lacking for Counts II & III |
| Whether 10 U.S.C. § 1586 is money-mandating | §1586(c)(1)-(2) requires placement in same or equivalent position upon return, so it supports a money claim | §1586 governs placement rights but does not mandate payment; thus not a money-mandating source | Dismissed: §1586 is not money-mandating; cannot support Tucker Act jurisdiction for Count I |
| Whether plaintiff carried burden to show Tucker Act jurisdiction | Alleged statutory violations (Back Pay Act + §1586) suffice | Plaintiff failed to identify a statute that compels payment; burden unmet | Dismissed: plaintiff did not meet preponderance burden to establish jurisdiction |
| Remedy in Court of Federal Claims available for alleged harms | Back Pay Act remedies could apply if tied to a money-mandating source | Without an underlying money-mandating statute, CFC lacks waiver of sovereign immunity | Dismissed: remedies under Back Pay Act require an underlying money-mandating statute; absent here |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882 (Fed. Cir.) (Back Pay Act is derivative and not itself jurisdictional)
- Worthington v. United States, 168 F.3d 24 (Fed. Cir.) (Back Pay Act is money-mandating only when based on another money-mandating statute)
- Spagnola v. Stockman, 732 F.2d 908 (Fed. Cir.) (Back Pay Act inapplicable unless another provision commands payment)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires a money-mandating source and class eligibility)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S.) (statute must create substantive right and mandate payment to be money-mandating)
- Collins v. United States, 67 F.3d 284 (Fed. Cir.) (statute relied on must grant right of action with specificity to be money-mandating)