Taylor v. United States
128 Fed. Cl. 635
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Taylor, a pro se plaintiff, is a Department of the Army employee at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii who alleges misclassification from GS-5 to GS-9 and related off-description duties.
- He claims his pay was inappropriately set at GS-5 while performing GS-9 duties, and that he suffered sleep deprivation, depression, and required teaching/training outside his job description.
- He initially filed suit in the District of Hawaii on May 31, 2013; an amended complaint was filed January 31, 2014, seeking back pay and damages.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on December 3, 2014, and left open the option to amend or transfer if pursuing contract claims.
- The case was transferred to the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 on February 13, 2015 and the transfer complaint was filed March 4, 2016.
- The court concludes that the plaintiff's claims sound in tort, breach of contract is unsupported, and the Back Pay Act requires a prior unwarranted action determination; further, §1500 bars the action due to pending district court matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims in COFC | Taylor seeks back pay and damages under multiple statutes. | COFC lacks jurisdiction for tort and contract claims against individuals; Back Pay Act requires prior unwarranted action. | Lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over tort and contract claims; Back Pay Act not applicable. |
| Back Pay Act applicability | Back Pay Act should compensate for underpayment due to misclassification. | No prior unwarranted action determination by proper authority. | No jurisdiction under the Back Pay Act absent prior determination. |
| Effect of §1500 on transferred claims | Transfer under §1631 should permit COFC adjudication. | §1500 bars claims where pending in another court. | §1500 bars the action due to pending district court proceedings and overlap. |
| Contract claim viability | Plaintiff asserts contract-based hire terms. | Presumption of appointment; no colorable contract shown. | Contract claim fails; no contract shown to rebut appointment presumption. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988) (jurisdictional prerequisites for Back Pay Act claims)
- Cook v. United States, 170 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (partial transfers under §1631 and §1500 interaction)
- Griffin v. United States, 590 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (interplay of §1631 and §1500 in transfer scenarios)
- Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (post-dismissal pending status governs §1500 applicability)
- Tohono O'Odham Nation v. United States, 563 U.S. 307 (2011) (overlap test removal of relief-prong post-TOhono)