Turping v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 293
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Hanford Site contractors created the Hanford Multi-Employer Pension Plan (MEPP) to preserve employee pension credit across subcontractor transfers; the Plan was administered by an independent Plan Administrator but required DOE approval for amendments or actions with financial impact.
- In 1996 DOE re-competed the Hanford management contract; many incumbent employees were offered employment with successor subcontractors (including Lockheed) and were told their MEPP benefits might differ; some Lockheed hires were later informed their retirement benefits would be reduced.
- The MEPP was amended in January 1997 to calculate benefits for certain transferees using a "highest five-year" salary method rather than total Hanford years of service; Lockheed employees were told they could not challenge changes until retirement.
- Peter Turping (and others similarly situated) retired in 2014 and sought benefit calculations reflecting total Hanford service; the Plan Administrator refused. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims alleging an implied-in-fact contract with DOE, breach of fiduciary duty, and a Fifth Amendment taking.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing (inter alia) no contractual intent by DOE, lack of offer/acceptance/consideration/authority, and that the takings claim is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
- The court dismissed: it found it had jurisdiction over the breach claim but held plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to show DOE manifested intent to contract (i.e., no plausible implied-in-fact contract). The Takings Clause claim was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs alleged a money-mandating source for Tucker Act jurisdiction | MEPP, DOE solicitation, DOE Order 350.1 and agency conduct created an implied-in-fact contract with DOE obligating continued MEPP treatment | MEPP and related documents are agreements among private contractors and regulatory statements; no intent by DOE to be contractually bound | Court: Tucker Act jurisdiction exists over a breach claim where plaintiff nonfrivolously alleges an implied-in-fact contract; jurisdiction therefore proper to decide breach claim |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded an implied-in-fact contract (mutual intent, consideration, offer/acceptance, authority) | MEPP terms (Article 29), Solicitation language, DOE control over MEPP administration, and continuation of benefits to other transferees evidence DOE intent and offer; plaintiffs accepted by working for successor contractors | MEPP is a private-plan document; Solicitation and DOE Order are regulatory or a procurement offer to contractors, not an offer to employees; plaintiffs lack facts showing DOE agent with contracting authority or required consideration | Court: Plaintiffs failed to plead adequate facts showing DOE objectively manifested intent to contract; dismissal for failure to state an implied-in-fact contract claim |
| Whether the breach and takings claims are time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 | Plaintiffs treated DOE’s 1996 conduct as anticipatory repudiation and elected to await performance (retirement), so claims accrued at retirement; equitable estoppel applies because DOE told them not to challenge until retirement | Government: liability fixed in 1996 when transferees were told their service would not count; statute of limitations thus expired in 2002; equitable tolling/estoppel unavailable against § 2501's jurisdictional bar | Court: Breach claim timely under repudiation doctrine (plaintiffs could await performance); Takings claim untimely because accrual occurred in 1996 and § 2501 is jurisdictional and not equitably tolled |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a Takings Clause claim based on change to pension benefits | Plaintiffs assert MEPP participation was a cognizable property right protected by the Fifth Amendment and DOE’s actions effected a taking | Government: deprivation of contractual rights gives a breach claim, not a taking; plaintiffs allege unauthorized regulatory violation not an authorized governmental taking; no property interest established | Court: Takings claim dismissed as time-barred; also found plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead a protected property interest in MEPP participation to state a takings claim |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Supreme Court) (Tucker Act confers jurisdiction but does not create substantive money-mandating rights)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (Supreme Court) (source of law must be fairly interpreted as mandating compensation by the government)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. F.A.A., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires a money-mandating source and a nonfrivolous allegation of entitlement)
- Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (breach-of-contract claims ordinarily satisfy Tucker Act money-mandating requirement)
- Franconia Assocs. v. United States, 536 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court) (repudiation doctrine governs accrual for § 2501 purposes; promisee may await performance)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (Supreme Court) (§ 2501 is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling)
- Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.) (regulatory violations alone do not state a takings claim)
- Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (regulatory proclamations insufficient to create contractual obligations)