Vandesande v. United States

• Decision Date: 24 February 2017
• Docket Number: No. 09-258C,09-258C
• Parties: GLADYS S. VANDESANDE, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

GLADYS S. VANDESANDE, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 09-258C

United States Court of Federal Claims

February 24, 2017

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Rule 56; Summary Judgment; Breach of Contract; Res Judicata.

Roderick V. Hannah, Attorney of Record, Roderick V. Hannah, Esq. P.A., Plantation, FL, for plaintiff.

Douglas T. Hoffman, Trial Attorney, Allison Kidd-Miller, Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GRIGGSBY, Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Gladys S. VanDesande, a former letter carrier with the United States Postal Service ("USPS"), brings this breach of contract action against the United States seeking to recover certain monetary damages, interest and attorney's fees pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). See generally Compl. Specifically, plaintiff alleges in this action that the USPS materially breached a Stipulation Agreement Regarding Damages (the "Stipulation Agreement") that she entered into with the USPS to resolve certain employment discrimination and retaliation claims.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability on the issue of whether the USPS breached the Stipulation Agreement. In this regard, plaintiff argues in her motion that the government breached the Stipulation Agreement by: (1) failing to reinstate her with pay and later terminating plaintiff's employment, in violation of paragraphs 1, 2, 12 and 21 of the Stipulation Agreement; (2) failing to make certain payments to address the tax consequences of lump sum and other pay payments required under the agreement (the "Tax Consequences Payments"), pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Stipulation Agreement; and (3) failing to calculate and pay the correct amount of interest due to plaintiff, pursuant to paragraph 8 the Stipulation Agreement. Compl. at ¶¶ 10(b)-10(d), 16, Ex. B at ¶¶ 1-2, 8, 14, 21, 28; Pl. Br. at 6, 8.

The government has also moved for summary judgment on liability and argues that the USPS has not breached the Stipulation Agreement because: (1) plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (2) plaintiff did not submit the required accountant-prepared tax consequences calculations needed in order to receive the Tax Consequences Payments; (3) the government did not have an obligation to reinstate plaintiff with pay under the terms of the Stipulation Agreement; (4) the USPS correctly calculated and paid all interest due under the Stipulation Agreement; and (5) plaintiff is not entitled to recover certain IRS-levied interest and penalties, and certain attorney's fees, under the terms of the Stipulation Agreement. Def. Mot. at 8.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability and GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the government's motion for summary judgment on liability.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND¹

A. Factual Background

In this breach of contract action, plaintiff, Gladys S. VanDesande, seeks to recover certain payments, back pay and other relief that she alleges are owed under the terms of the Stipulation Agreement that she entered into with the USPS in 2003. See generally Compl.Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the USPS materially breached the Stipulation Agreement by, among other things, failing to reinstate her and make certain Tax Consequences Payments. Compl. at ¶¶ 10(b)-10(d), 16, Ex. B at ¶¶ 1-2, 8, 14, 21, 28; Pl. Br. at 6, 8. As relief, plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages and certain interest and fees from the government. Compl. at Prayer for Relief.

1. Plaintiff's Discrimination Claims

The facts regarding plaintiff's breach of contract claims are generally undisputed. Plaintiff is a former letter carrier with the USPS. Pl. Mot at ¶ 1. During 1998 and 1999, the USPS denied plaintiff work and ultimately removed plaintiff from her position as a letter carrier. See generally Compl. at Ex. A, C; see also Def. Mot. at 2. Following her removal from the USPS, plaintiff brought employment discrimination claims against the USPS before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"). Id. On January 28, 2003, the EEOC found that the USPS had discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Compl. at Ex. A, C; Def. Mot. at 2; Pl. Mot. at ¶ 1; Pl. Br. at 6-7; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(k), 2000e-16. Before the EEOC could address the issue of damages with respect to plaintiff's employment discrimination claims, plaintiff and the USPS resolved these claims by entering into the Stipulation Agreement on June 18, 2003. Compl. at Ex. A, B; Am. Answer at ¶¶ 4, 7; Def. Mot at 2; Pl. Mot. at ¶ 1; Pl. Br. at 6- 7.

This Stipulation Agreement provides for, among other things, certain lump sum payments to compensate plaintiff for lost wages and lost sick and annual leave; interest payments; the Tax Consequences Payments; and plaintiff's voluntary resignation from the USPS. See generally Compl. at Ex. B; see also VanDesande v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 624, 627 (2010). On June 23, 2003, the EEOC entered a Final Order incorporating the Stipulation Agreement. Compl. at ¶ 8, Ex. C.

Plaintiff did not return to work as a letter carrier after June 23, 2003, and she was placed on "unpaid, non-duty status." Pl. Br. at 10; see also Def. Mot. at 3. The EEOC issued a Notice of Final Action that adopted and implemented the Stipulation Agreement on August 6, 2003. Compl. at Ex. D.

Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation Agreement, the USPS made approximately$560,000 in "lump sum back pay, damages and interest payments" to plaintiff in 2003 and 2004. Pl. Br. at 7; Def. Mot. at 3-4, App. to Def. Mot. at DA48; Am. Answer at ¶ 10; Compl. at ¶ 10; Pl. Mot. at Ex. A at ¶¶ 10, 15. These payments include a lump sum payment of $115,000 for plaintiff's agreement to voluntarily resign from the USPS. Def. Mot. at 3-4; Compl. at ¶ 10; Pl. Mot. at Ex. A at ¶ 15.

On April 27, 2006, plaintiff obtained a tax consequences calculation from her certified public accountant to determine the amount of her Tax Consequences Payments. Pl. Br. at 13-14; Pl. Mot. at Ex. 5, Ex. A at ¶ 12; Def. Mot. at 5-6; Def. Reply at 8. The USPS subsequently received this calculation. Id.

In July and November of 2006, respectively, plaintiff filed her 2003 and 2004 taxes with the Internal Revenue Service. App. to Def. Mot. at DA123-25, DA127-28. To date, the USPS has not paid plaintiff for the tax consequences resulting from the lump sum payments that she received in 2003 and 2004. Pl. Br. at 14-16; Compl. at Ex. A at ¶¶ 14-16; Def Mot. at 17; Def. Reply at 11-12.

2. The Stipulation Agreement

There are several provisions in the Stipulation Agreement that are relevant to plaintiff's breach of contract claims.

First, with respect to plaintiff's claim that the USPS breached the Stipulation Agreement by failing to reinstate her with pay, paragraph 1 of the Stipulation Agreement provides, in relevant part, that:

The Agency hereby rescinds the Notice of Removal, dated February 3, 1999, issued to the Complainant, Gladys S. VanDesande, which notice shall be deemed null and void. The Agency shall remove . . . the Notice of Removal, dated February 3, 1999, issued to the Complainant, and all related records, from all of the Complainant's records and files . . . The Notice of Removal, dated February 3, 1999, shall not be cited by the Agency in any manner, in any other case . . . involving the Complainant . . .

Compl. at Ex. B at ¶ 1. Similarly, paragraph 2 of the Stipulation Agreement also provides, in relevant part, that:

The Agency hereby rescinds the Notice of Removal, dated December 21, 1999, issued to the Complainant, Gladys S. VanDesande, which notice shall be deemed null and void. The Agency shall remove . . . the Notice of Removal, dated December 21, 1999, issued to the Complainant, and all related records, from all of the Complainant's records and files . . . The Notice of Removal, dated December 21, 1999, shall not be cited by the Agency in any manner, in any other case . . . involving the Complainant . . .

Compl. at Ex. B. at ¶ 2.

Paragraph 12 of the Stipulation Agreement, further provides, in relevant part, that:

The Agency shall credit to the Complainant's pay and leave accounts all annual leave and sick leave hours that the Complainant would have earned had the Complainant not been denied work and discharged from her position with the Agency, beginning September 18, 1998 . . . The Agency shall not reduce the total credited annual leave or sick leave hours for any maximum carryover provisions for past leave years (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003) . . . The Agency shall reverse the terminal leave payment of 2001 made to Complainant and credit Complainant with all hours paid. Any deductions of leave hours caused by the Complainant's use of LWOP time, if any, charged to the Complainant after pay period 2003-15-02, until full compliance, shall not be deducted from the total accrued leave to be paid by virtue of this paragraph and paragraph #13 . . .

Compl. at Ex. B at ¶ 12. Lastly, paragraph 21, provides, in relevant part, that:

The Agency shall pay the Complainant a lump sum payment of one hundred-fifteen thousand dollars ($115,000.00) to resign from her current position as a city letter carrier with the Agency and never reapply for employment with the Agency. The Agency shall only deduct federal income tax, social security and medicare deductions. No other deductions shall be made from this payment. The Agency shall pay the full lump sum payment of one hundred-fifteen thousand dollars ($115,000.00) to the Complainant after January 1, 2004, but no later than January 30, 2004. The Complainant agrees to resign from the employment of the Agency only

...