Tallacus v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 235
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- In 1997, Tallacus sued the Department of Health and Human Services for Title VII discrimination based on failure to promote and pay grade; settlement classified him as a CHSO with duties supporting his grade.
- In 2007, Tallacus was moved from CHSO to an Accounting Technician GS-07 position via a reduction-in-force.
- Tallacus filed a six-count complaint in the District of Oregon asserting retaliation, discrimination, and breach of the settlement agreement.
- On April 15, 2010, the District of Oregon dismissed the breach-of-contract claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Tallacus then filed a breach-of-contract claim in this Court on May 21, 2010.
- On March 24, 2011, the District Court entered judgment for the Department on retaliation and discrimination claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1500 bars Count I as pending elsewhere | Tallacus argues the Oregon claim is distinct in remedy and facts. | Tallacus's breach claim relies on the same operative facts; thus § 1500 bars this Court. | Count I must be dismissed under § 1500. |
| Whether 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 authorizes a federal court to hear a breach of Title VII settlement | Monetary damages are recoverable for breach of the settlement. | Regulation only permits reinstatement or EEOC resolution; no money damages in court. | Court lacks jurisdiction; dismissal of breach claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dico, Inc. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1199 (Fed.Cir.1995) (§ 1500 bar arises at filing if claims are based on same operative facts)
- Vero Technical Support, Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 784 (Fed.Cl.2010) (pending dismissal remains pending for § 1500 purposes until appeal period expires)
- Jachetta v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 277 (Fed.Cl.2010) (same; pending dismissal considerations)
- Firebaugh Canal Water Dist. v. United States, 70 Fed.Cl. 593 (Fed.Cl.2006) (pending status under § 1500 considerations)
- Lindstrom v. United States, 510 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir.2007) (§ 1614.504 does not authorize a suit to enforce settlement, only reinstatement)
- Frahm v. United States, 492 F.3d 258 (4th Cir.2007) (breach of Title VII settlement action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
- Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856 (9th Cir.2010) (regulation 1614.504 silent on court actions; jurisdictional implications)
- Phillips v. United States, 77 Fed.Cl. 613 (Fed.Cl.2007) (breach of Title VII settlement dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (U.S.2002) (appeal period relevance in pending-dismissal analysis)