Williams v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 761

Background

Eric P. Williams, an FBI Special Agent, held temporary GS-14 pay during a TDY (Dec 2012–2014), then returned to a permanent GS-14 position in June–Aug 2014; SF-50 records show a brief (June–Aug 2014) misclassification to GS-13, Step 8.
In September 2014 the FBI issued two backdated SF-50s: one canceling the GS-13, Step 8 placement and another extending GS-14, Step 2 pay to cover June–Sept 2014; the FBI recouped a small overpayment.
Williams sued in the Court of Federal Claims (Jan 20, 2016), claiming entitlement under 5 U.S.C. § 5334(b) (the two-step promotion rule) to GS-14, Step 5 pay from Aug 24, 2014 and $33,900 in backpay.
The Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, arguing (1) relief would require unlawful reclassification and predicate determinations the court cannot make, and (2) § 5334(b) does not apply because Williams was laterally moved within GS-14 after the FBI corrected the ministerial error and FBI policy precluded HPR treatment.
The court found § 5334(b) is money-mandating (so jurisdiction exists) but held Williams failed to state a claim because (a) the brief GS-13 classification was a ministerial error corrected before suit, and (b) FBI Policy Directive 0624D precluded application of HPR, making Williams a lateral GS-14 move rather than a promotion triggering the two-step rule.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over a § 5334(b) claim	Williams: § 5334(b) is money-mandating; court may award backpay and adjust step	Gov’t: Even if money-mandating, relief would require unlawful reclassification/predicate factual determinations beyond the court’s power	Court: Jurisdiction exists because § 5334(b) is money-mandating and the complaint is non-frivolous
Whether § 5334(b) (two-step promotion rule) applies to Williams’ August 24, 2014 placement	Williams: He was effectively promoted from GS-13, Step 8 to GS-14 and thus entitled to GS-14, Step 5	Gov’t: The GS-13 placement was a ministerial error; after correction Williams was laterally moved within GS-14 so § 5334(b) does not apply	Court: Dismissed — § 5334(b) inapplicable because error was corrected and result was a lateral GS-14 assignment
Whether the SF-50s or post-hoc paperwork control substantive rights	Williams: An SF-50 is not dispositive; the ‘‘true nature of the appointment’’ governs	Gov’t: SF-50 corrections reflected correction of ministerial error and proper classification under FBI policy	Court: Agreed that SF-50s are not dispositive, but the FBI demonstrated ministerial error and proper corrective action, so plaintiff cannot rely on the transient erroneous SF-50
Whether FBI Policy Directive 0624D bars HPR and prevents a two-step windfall	Williams: The backdated cancellation was pretext to deny § 5334(b) relief	Gov’t: Directive 0624D § 9.5.3 prevents granting HPR where promotion was anticipated and would create a windfall; it applies here	Court: Held the FBI policy applies and precludes HPR, supporting dismissal for failure to state a claim

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (establishes that Tucker Act is jurisdictional and courts cannot grant retrospective promotions as money relief)
United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (limits equitable relief available in Court of Federal Claims)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (money-mandating standard: statute must fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation)
Brodowy v. United States, 482 F.3d 1370 (holds § 5334(b) is money-mandating if entitlement is shown)
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to adjudicate well-pleaded, non-frivolous claims under money-mandating statutes)
Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (discusses limits on Claims Court jurisdiction where entitlement depends on reclassification)
Grigsby v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 729 F.2d 772 (SF-50 not dispositive; government may show ministerial error)
James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573 (equitable relief in Claims Court must be incident to and collateral to money judgment)