UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Denise L. Robinson, :
:
Plaintiff, :
v. : Civil Action No. 10-1577 (CKK)
:
Ken Salazar, :
:
Defendant. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This civil action was commenced under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. It stems
from a settlement agreement the parties reached in March 2007 to resolve plaintiff’s employment
discrimination complaint against defendant, her then-employer. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief
and $300,000 in monetary damages. Compl. at 3. Defendant moves to dismiss the case pursuant
to Rules 8(a), 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following
reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. It therefore will
grant defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) but, in the interests of justice, will
transfer the case to the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, a claim based on an express or implied contract
with the United States must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims if the claim exceeds
$10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), Doe v. Dep't of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
(“Jurisdiction for those monetary claims against the United States exceeding $10,000 lies
exclusively with the Claims Court.”) (citation omitted); accord Transohio Sav. Bank v. Director,
Office of Thrift Supervision, 967 F.2d 598, 609 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “[E]ven though Title VII might
have been the basis of a settlement agreement, a breach claim is a straightforward contract
dispute . . . under the Tucker Act[.]” Greenhill v. Spellings, 482 F.3d 569, 575 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
(citing cases).
Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because “[t]he only
issue is whether the settlement agreement or contract remains viable or has been breached.”
Def.’s Mem. of P. &. A. in Support of Mot. [Dkt. # 8-1] at 5. Plaintiff agrees that “this case is
and was clearly presented as a breach of contract action” and that “the relief sought does exceed
$10,000.00.” Pl.’s Res. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 11] at 1. She states that she filed here
“because she was directed to do so per the instruction on page 4" of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s right to sue notice. Id., Ex. A; Compl. Attach. Consequently, the
Court, lacking jurisdiction over plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, will grant defendant’s motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). Rather than dismiss the action, however, the Court finds it in the
interests of justice to transfer it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the Court of Federal Claims. See
Greenhill, 482 F.3d at 576 (remanding Tucker Act case to the district court with instructions to
transfer it to the Court of Federal Claims). A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
__________s/s__________________
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
DATE: April 8, 2011
2