BRIZUELA v. USA
Filing
25
PUBLISHED OPINION granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk is directed to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. No costs. Signed by Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. (dls) Copy to parties.
dh-fi$f,
lJntht @nftrU $lty;tts @ourt otfelnul @lufms
No. 09-797C
(Filed: February 29, 20 12)
,1.'1.
FILED
FEB
i.'* * * {. * * * * * * * * *'i * *,} * *'} *
I
I2012
U.S.Cq.lFTOF
FRANCISCO BRIZUELA.
FEDEFALCI.AIMS
Plaintffi
Contracts; Jurisdiction;
Presumption of Money
Damages; Statute of
Limitations
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
{.,1.,},1. *,1.'1.'t {.
* {. *, *,1. * * * * * * * * * *
Francisco Brinnla, San Diego, CA, pro
se.
Michael D- Snyder, United States Department ofJustice, Civil Division,
Washington, D.C., with whom were Tony l(est, Assistant Attomey General,
Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director for
defendant. Mellisa Mortimer, United States Postal Service, of counsel.
OPINION
BRUGGINK, -rzdge.
This is an action for breach of an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission settlement agreement. Pending is defendant's motion to dismiss
for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction under Rule l2(b)(l) ofthe Rules of the
Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The matter is fully briefed. Oral argument
is deemed unnecessary. For the reasons set out below we grant the motion to
dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Francisco Brizuela, plaintiff, was employed as a mail handler in
Amarillo, Texas, by the United States Postal Service ("USPS") until he was
terminated on April 3, 1985, during his initial probationary period. Compl. fl
I 9; Def.'s Ex. B. On April I 6, I 985, plaintiff fi led a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission C'EEOC') against the USPS. The
complaint alleged the USPS discriminated against him on the basis of national
origin.
Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with the USPS on June 18,
I 985 (the "Agreement"). Def.'s Ex. A. The Agreement provided, in part, that
plaintiff could "submit a request for reinstatement into the Amarillo, Texas
Post Office as a . . . Career Mail Handler." 1d. Per the Agreement, plaintiff s
reinstatement request would receive "full, fair, and just consideration" upon
the availability of a mail handler position in the Amarillo Post Office and
plaintiff would experience "no acts ofreprisals and/or retaliations" for filing
the EEOC complaint. Id. The Agreement also provided that "if and/or when
there is a favorable consideration given to the re-instatement" plaintiffwould
serve a 90-day probationary period. Id.
On June 19, 1985, plaintiff submitted a request to be reinstated as a
mail handler at the Amarillo Post Office. In a letter dated July 3 l, 1985, the
Amarillo Postmaster, Donald S. Boyd, informed plaintiff that the Amarillo
Post Office was not hiring. The letter also informed plaintiff that his
reinstatement request would be "placed on file for one year." Pl.'s Ex. 3.
Nearly sixteen years later, in February 2001, plaintiff contacted the
Amarillo Post Office and provided it with copies of his 1985 reinstatement
request, the Agreement, and the July 3 l, 1985 letter. The Amarillo Post Office
discovered that plaintiffhad recently applied for a position at the San Diego
Post Office and now resided in San Diego. Plaintiff was advised to contact the
human resources department of the San Diego Post Office.
Plaintiff s application to the San Diego Post Office represented that he
had never been terminated from any job. Upon review of plaintiffs
application and his USPS personnel file, the San Diego Post Office discovered
plaintiff s 1985 termination from the Amarillo Post Office and asked him for
an explanation. After plaintiff provided an explanation for his termination,
plaintiff was hired as a custodian and laborer by the San Diego Post Office in
November of2004.
On February 13,2006, plaintiff filed an agency complaint with the
USPS alleging breach of the Agreement. On April 6,2006, the USPS issued
a final agency decision finding that the USPS had not breached the Agreement.
Def.'s Ex. E. Plaintiff appealed to the EEOC, and the USPS's decision was
affirmed by the EEOC on September 10,2007. Def.'s Ex. F.
Plaintiff file d a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on December I1,2007. On August 13,2009,
the District Court determined that plaintiff s claim was for breach of contract
and ordered the suit transferred to this court. Plaintiff filed his transferred
complaint on December 22,2009, and amended the complaint on August 3,
2010. The case was stayed on November 5,2010, because the Federal
Circuit's resolution of Holmes v. United States,657 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
201 1), was directly relevant and potentially controlling ofthe resolution ofthe
issues presented here.
Plaintiff asserts that the USPS breached the Agreement by failing to
fully and fairly consider him for reinstatement and for failure to ensure that he
did not experience any "acts of reprisal and/or retaliation." Compl. fl 30.
Plaintiff further alleges that the USPS breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing because the USPS did not perform under the Agreement
as reasonably expected. Plaintiff also makes a claim that the Postmaster,
within the course and scope of his authority for the USPS, intentionally
deceived plaintiff in the July 3 l, 1985 letter by stating that the Amarillo Post
Office was not hiring new employees.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under RCFC 12(bxl). Defendant makes two arguments: (l) that
the Agreement is not money-mandating, therefore, this court does not have
jurisdiction under the Tucker Act; and (2) this court does not havejurisdiction
because plaintiff s claims are baned by the six-year statute of limitations set
forth in the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. $ 2501 (2006). We agree only with the
second contention.
DISCUSSION
Jurisdiction is a threshold matter. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). If the court determines that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. RCFC l2(h)(3). In
considering defendant's motion to dismiss, we must assume factual allegations
in the complaint are true and draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff s favor.
Henke v. United States,60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Plaintiff, however,
bears the burden ofestablishing subject matterjurisdiction by a preponderance
of the evidence . See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d7 46,
748 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
I. The court has jurisdiction over breach of the EEOC agreement
The TuckerAct confers upon this courtjurisdiction to "renderjudgment
upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution,
or any Act ofCongress or any regulation ofan executive department, or upon
any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or
unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. $ la9l(a)(l)
(2006). The Tucker Act "itself does not create a substantive cause of action;
in order to come within the jurisdictional reach and the waiver [of sovereign
immunity inl the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identi$ a separate source of
substantive law that creates the right to money damages." Fisher v. United
States,402 F.3d I167, ll72 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc portion). The separate
source of substantive law must represent a "money-mandating constitutional
provision, statute or regulation that has been violated, or an express or implied
contract with the United States." Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States,27
F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Defendant asserts that this court does not have jurisdiction over
plaintiff s breach of contract claim because the Agreement cannot be fairly
interpreted as money mandating. Defendant's argument is thatplaintiff cannot
establish subject matter jurisdiction by a showing that the Agreement fairly
infers the availability of money damages for breach.
Plaintiffresponds that the nature ofthe suit, breach ofcontract, in itself
establishes jurisdiction. Citing United States v.ll/instar,518 U.S. 839, 885
(1996), plaintiff asserts that the default remedy for any breach of contract is
money damages. Plaintiff s argument, thus, is that the "'contract itself does
not need to be money-mandating because money damages are the default
remedy for a breach of contract."' Pl.'s Resp. 6 (quoting Taylor v. United
States,73 Fed. Cl. 532,545 (2006).
During the pendency of this case, the Federal Circuit, in Holmes,
addressed similar arguments in a case dealing with Title VII settlement
agreements. The Federal Circuit noted that "'[n]ormally contracts do not
contain provisions specifuing the basis for the award of damages in case of
breach . . . ."' Ho lme s, 65 7 F.3d at 1 3 1 4 (quoting Sa n Juan C ity C oll. v. United
States,39I F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir.2004)). In discussing the moneymandating requirements of the Tucker Act, "Ig]enerally, [the Federal Circuit]
also has distinguished claims based upon the Constitution, a statute, or a
regulation, from claims based upon a contract." 1d. The court then found that
"in a contract case, the money-mandating requirement for Tucker Act
jurisdiction normally is satisfied by the presumption that money damages are
available for breach ofcontract, with no further inquiry being necessary." Id
In evaluating the Title VII agreements at issue in Holmes, although
noting that monetary damages are not always available for breach of a Title
VII agreement, the court found the agreements could be fairly interpreted as
contemplating monetary damages. Id. at 1315-16. In arriving at this
conclusion, the court noted the agreements called for Mr. Holmes' suspension
to be expunged from his record and for the Naly to provide Mr. Holmes a
neutral reference. Id. The court observed that there was no language
indicating that money damages were not available and then concluded that "the
agreements inherently relate to monetary compensation through relationship
to Mr. Holmes's future employment." Id. at 1316.
The Agreement in this case calls for plaintiff to file a reinstatement
request for employment as a mail handler. It states that, upon filing of the
request, the application will be given "full, fair, andjust consideration." Pl.'s
Ex. 1. The Agreement also calls for plaintiff to serve a probationary period "if
and/or when" reinstated. .Id Additionally, the Agreement provides that
plaintiff "will experience no acts of reprisals and/or retaliations for seeking
redress through the EEO Complaint Process." Id. Like the agreement in
Holmes, therefore, the Agreement in this case contemplates the possibility of
plaintiff s future employment. Additionally, like the agreements in Holmes,
the Agreement does not contain language indicating that monetary damages
are not available
Given the presumption that money damages are available for breach of
a contract and the similarities between the Agreement in this case and the
agreement in Holmes, we find the Agreement can be fairly interpreted as
contemplating monetary damages as an available remedy. We, therefore,
would have jurisdiction over plaintiffs breach of contract claim if not for a
different defect discussed below.
II. Plaintiff
s
claim is barred by the statute of limitations
Filing a claim within the applicable statute of limitations is a
jurisdictional "condition of the waiver of sovereigrr immunity" under the
s
Tucker Act. Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 129 5, 13 16 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
"Every claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has
jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years
after such claim first accrues." 28 U.S.C. g 2501 (2006). Under the Tucker
Act, a claim accrues "as soon as all events have occuned that are necessary to
enable the plaintiffto bring suit, i.e., when 'all events have occurred to fix the
Govemment's alleged liability, entitling the claimant to demand payment and
sue here for his money."' Martinez,333 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Nager Elec.
Co. v. United States,368F.2d847,851 (Ct. Cl. 1966).
Defendant asserts that, even accepting plaintiff s allegations ofbreach
of the Agreement, plaintiff s claim accrued more than six years before he
commenced this suit. Defendant argues that plaintiff received notice that the
Amarillo Post Office would not keep his application on file and thus would not
consider the application after August 1, 1986. Plaintiff responds that the
accrual of his claim for breach ofcontract was suspended because he did not
know and should not have known that the claim existed, and thus the accrual
suspension rule is applicable. Pl.'s Resp. l0 (crting Young v. United States,
s29 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
The Agreement was executed on June 18, 1985. Itprovides that:
upon completion of military duty . . . ending July 22, 1985,
[plaintiff] will submit a request for re-instatement into the
Amarillo, Texas Post Office as a ...MailHandler.... Upon
the availability for Mailhandler position vacancies for the
Amarillo, Texas Post Office, the [plaintiff s] request will be
given full, fair, and just consideration.
Pl.'s Ex. L The Agreement sets out no time limit regarding defendant's
obligation to give consideration to plaintiffs request and did not require
plaintiff to make multiple reinstatement requests. Plaintiff submitted his
request for reinstatement on June 19, 1985, before the date contemplated in the
agreement. .lee Pl.'s Ex. 2. On July 31, 1985, Donald S. Bloyd, Postmaster,
notified plaintiff by letter of"a suspension on adding new employees." Pl.'s
Ex. 3. The July 31, 1985 letter stated that plaintiffs request "letter will be
placed on file for one year." 1d This letter served as notice to plaintiffthat on
August 1, 1986, one year after the letter's date, his reinstatement request would
no longer be on file, and thus would not be considered
position became available beyond that date.
if
a mail handler
The accrual suspension rule requires that plaintiff "must either show
that the defendant has concealed its acts with the result that plaintiff was
unaware of their existence or it must show that its injury was 'inherently
unknowable' at the accrual dat e." Young, 529 F .3 d at 13 84 (quoting Mart ine z,
333 F.3d at 1319). Plaintiff asserts that the Amarillo Post Office did not have
a hiring suspension
1985 and that the Postmaster intentionally
misrepresented this information. Even accepting this allegation as true,
however, plaintiffstill received notice that his reinstatement request would not
be maintained beyond August 1, 1986. Although plaintiff may not have been
aware ofalleged misrepresentations, plaintiffknew ofshould have known that
the Amarillo Post Office would not continue to consider him for mail handler
positions after August l, 1986, because his reinstatement request would not be
on file. Any alleged obligation ofdefendant to continue considering plaintiff
for mail handler positions, therefore, was breached on August l, 1986, because
the Amarillo Post Office made it clear it would no longer consider plaintiff s
reinstatement request after that date.
in
Plaintiff next points to Holmes, in which the court found the accrual
suspension rule applied to the breach of a Title VII agreement. 657 F .3d at
1321. On this issue, the Holmes case is distinguishable from this case. In
Holmes, the Navy agreed to remove a fourteen-day suspension from the
plaintiff s employment record. 1d Approximately two months after the
agreement, the Nary provided the Assistant United States Attomey in charge
of the case with a letter confirming that it had removed the suspension from
Mr. Holmes record. The Holmes court found it reasonable that Mr. Holmes
could not and would not have known that the Navy had in fact failed to remove
the record. 1d. In this case, the USPS had an obligation to give plaintiffs
reinstatement request "fuII, fair, and just consideration" for a mail handler
position. The USPS informed plaintiff that it did not have an available
position and would keep his request on file for one year. Plaintifl therefore,
knew or should have known his reinstatement request would not be considered
after the passage of one year.
Plaintiff s claims accrued no later than August
l,
1986, because the
USPS informed him it would no longermaintain his reinstatement request after
that date. Without the reinstatement r€quest on file, the USPS would not
perform its alleged obligation to consider plaintiff for mail handler positions
after August 1, 1986. Plaintiff has failed to establish that the accrual
suspension rule should apply to his claims. Plaintiff s claims, therefore, are
baned by the six-year statute of limitations under the Tucker Act.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk is directed to
dismiss the complaint without prejudice. No costs.
ERIC G. BRUG
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?