Roberts v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2438
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Roberts, a DCC at Camp Hansen Okinawa, sues for LQA under the Overseas Differentials and Allowances Act and DSSR implementing regs.
- MCBJ considered recruitment need and agency expense and concluded LQA was not necessary for DCC positions.
- Job Announcement OK-08-058 stated the DCC position did not incur overseas allowances, but continuance could apply to those with LQA.
- Roberts accepted the DCC role with knowledge of $57,146 salary and no LQA.
- OPM denied Roberts’ LQA claim in 2010 as consistent with policy and guidance.
- Claims Court initially denied the government’s lack-of-subject-matter jurisdiction defense and then granted summary judgment for the government on the merits; this court affirms the judgment for the government on the merits and upholds jurisdiction under Roberts’ second theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Claims Court had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act | Roberts contends statute and DSSR are money-mandating | Government argues they are only money-authorizing | Roberts’ first theory fails; district effects lack money-mandating jurisdiction |
| Whether the combination of statute, DSSR, Instruction, and Order is money-mandating | Roberts argues combined regs compel LQA in cases designated by DoD/MCBJ | Instruction and Order create a money-mandating framework when combined with the Act | Yes; combination is money-mandating, giving jurisdiction for Roberts’ second theory |
| Merits: whether Roberts falls within a class entitled to LQA under the Job Announcement or the Order | Roberts is within a class eligible for LQA under the Order/Job Announcement | Job Announcement denied LQA; no continuance since Roberts wasn’t designated LQA-eligible or previously receiving LQA | No LQA; no eligibility or continuance; Roberts denied LQA on merits |
| APA challenge to Instruction/Order | Aspires to challenge substantive validity under APA | APA claims belong in district court, not Claims Court | Court lacks APA jurisdiction; claims belong in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (money-mandating standard for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (money-mandating requirement for statutory rights)
- Casa de Cambio Comdiv S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 291 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (money-mandating analysis; class-based entitlement)
- McBryde v. United States, 299 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (treatment of discretionary payments and money-mandating implications)
- Doe v. United States (Doe II), 463 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (regulations that provide a class entitlement render money-mandating)
- Trifunovich v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 301 (1971) (combination of statute, DSSR, and implementing regs can be money-mandating)
- Adair v. United States, 648 F.2d 1318 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (may vs. shall; framework where regulations define eligibility)
- Perri v. United States, 340 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (three-part test for money-mandating and discretion)
- Doe I, 100 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (rewards statute and money-mandating analysis)
- Huston v. United States, 956 F.2d 259 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (mandatory vs discretionary pay)
- Tyler v. United States, 600 F.2d 786 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (mandatory language in DoD regulations considered)