The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Nathan Strong against the United States, stemming from a settlement agreement Mr. Strong had with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The court ruled that Mr. Strong’s complaint failed to establish a breach of contract and that several of his claims fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
Mr. Strong, who was employed in an information technology position at the Office of Special Counsel, was facing potential removal from his job in June 2022. He appealed this decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). However, less than two months later, on July 15, 2022, Mr. Strong and the Office of Special Counsel reached a settlement agreement.
Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Strong agreed to withdraw his MSPB appeal and relinquish any claims related to his employment up to the effective date of the settlement. In return, the Office of Special Counsel agreed to several conditions. These included returning Mr. Strong to active duty, rescinding a performance appraisal from June 2022, and refraining from rating him for the first 90 days after his return. The office also agreed that Mr. Strong would be rated “as soon as practicable after 90 days from his return to duty” by his supervisor or the chief information officer.
Mr. Strong resigned from his position in November 2022. He then filed a lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims on September 27, 2024. In his complaint, Mr. Strong alleged that the Office of Special Counsel had breached the settlement agreement. He also brought claims of fraudulent inducement, misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of his due process rights. He sought damages of $291,025, a declaratory judgment, and other equitable relief.
Notably, Mr. Strong filed a separate complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on the same day he filed the lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims.
The Government’s Arguments and the Court’s Decision
The government moved to dismiss Mr. Strong’s complaint, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the breach-of-contract claims because they belonged at the MSPB. The government also argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over tort claims, unjust enrichment claims, and due process claims. Furthermore, the government contended that Mr. Strong’s simultaneous filing in district court deprived the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction. Alternatively, the government argued that Mr. Strong’s complaint failed to state a claim for breach of contract or civilian pay.
The court, while acknowledging its jurisdiction over the breach-of-contract claim, ultimately sided with the government. The court found that Mr. Strong’s complaint did not plausibly allege a breach of contract or otherwise state a claim for which the court could grant relief. The court also noted that other allegations, particularly those related to performance appraisals and employment disputes, were more appropriately addressed by the MSPB.
Key Points of the Court’s Reasoning
The court addressed several specific arguments made by Mr. Strong:
* Breach of Contract: The court examined the terms of the settlement agreement and found that Mr. Strong had not plausibly demonstrated that the government had failed to comply with its obligations. Specifically, the court found that Mr. Strong’s allegations about post-settlement performance documentation did not constitute a breach of the agreement. The court determined that the documentation was a performance plan, not a rating or appraisal, and that the agreement did not prohibit the government from using a performance plan.
* Money Damages: The court noted that even if a breach of contract had been established, the settlement agreement did not contain a money mandate. This is a requirement for the Court of Federal Claims to have jurisdiction. The court determined that Mr. Strong’s damages stemmed from his resignation, not from any alleged breach of the agreement.
* Waiver of Claims: The court also addressed Mr. Strong’s claim for unpaid pay from June 2, 2022. The court found that this claim was waived by the settlement agreement, as it covered events that occurred before the agreement was signed.
* Fraudulent Inducement: The court found that Mr. Strong’s claim of fraudulent inducement failed because he did not allege that the government made any misrepresentations about whom he was contracting with. He was aware he was contracting with the government entity that had proposed his removal.
* MSPB Jurisdiction: The court emphasized that claims related to performance appraisals, time sheets, and constructive discharge fall under the jurisdiction of the MSPB, not the Court of Federal Claims.
* Incorrect Citations: The court also pointed out that Mr. Strong had relied on several non-existent or misquoted cases in his legal filings. The court warned Mr. Strong that he may be sanctioned for providing false information to the court in the future.
The Court’s Conclusion
In its final decision, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case. The court also denied Mr. Strong’s pending motions to supplement and amend his pleadings and to take judicial notice, deeming them futile.