Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Adair v. United States

Adair v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

July 30, 2007, Decided

2006-5077

Opinion

 [*1249]  MICHEL, Chief Judge.

Adair et al. (hereinafter "Adair"), prison guards at the Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI") in Jesup, Georgia, appeal from the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing their complaint seeking enhanced back pay for their exposure to inmates' smoking for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Adair v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 65 (2006).  [**2] Discerning no reversible error on the part of the Court of Federal Claims, we affirm the judgment of dismissal on the alternative ground that the appellants failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The statutes and implementing regulations the complaint invokes simply do not apply to Adair because they do not cover second-hand smoke.

I. BACKGROUND

The Adair appellants are former and current (1) General Schedule employees under the Classification Act of 1979 and (2) Wage Supervisor or Wage Grade employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the FCI in Jesup, Georgia. In 2005, the Adair employees sued the United States government in the Court of Federal Claims for back pay, hazard pay, environmental hazard pay, and contributions to thrift savings accounts pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 5545(d) (which mandates additional compensation to General Schedule employees whose duties involve unusual physical hardships or hazards) and 5343(c)(4) (which mandates additional compensation to Wage Supervisor or Wage Grade employees whose duties involve unusually severe working conditions or hazards) based on their exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke ("ETS") (i.e., second-hand cigarette smoke)  [**3] at their workplace. The government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). 1 After the parties briefed the alternative bases for the government's motion for dismissal, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1). Adair, 70 Fed. Cl. at 80. This timely appeal followed. After oral argument, we sought and received from the parties supplemental briefing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) to review the trial court's decision and hence what we consider to be the crux of this case, namely whether ETS is covered by the statutes at issue  [*1250]  as interpreted in the regulations implemented by the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM").

II. DISCUSSION

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

497 F.3d 1244 *; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18055 **; 26 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1014

FRANK E. ADAIR, CYNTHIA A. ADAMS, JOSEPH ALDRIDGE, EMORY T. ALLEN, JODEE B. ANDERSON, ALFREDO ARIAS, JOSEPH W. ARNETT, LISA D. AYRES, CLYDE J. BAKER, SR., PAUL E. BARNARD, CHARLES M. BELL, ANTHONY O. BENJAMIN, ROY E. BEVERLY, ARCHIE S. BOATRIGHT, JR., TERRY JAMES BOULINEAU, JOHN BRADFORD, MARY ANN BRANCH, DANNY L. BRANTLEY, JODI BRITT, YANCIE W. BRITT, MICHAEL E. BROWN, PRENTICE KERRY BROWN, WILLIE M. BROWN, DONRET G. BUCKLEY, GREGORY A. BULLMAN, MICHAEL R. BUNCH, JONATHAN NATHANIEL CANN, THOMAS WAY CARTER, ERIN J. CHALFANT, GEORGIA A. CLARK, TYRONE CLARK, RICHARD L. CLEMONS, THOMAS D. COFFEY, DEBRA R. COLEMAN, CHARLES S. COLLINS, JAY D. COLLINS, RANDY L. COURSON, EARL F. COX, VINCENT L. CRAWFORD, VAN F. CREWS, SR., ANTHONY DANCER, DEBRA DAVIS, ROBIN DAVIS, DARIUS E. DELA CRUZ, WILLIAM LESLIE DELK, RICHARD EUGENE DENSON, RICKY DENT, SANDRA DICKENS, JAMES DILLER, JEFF A. DOLLAR, CHARLES MITCHELL DOWLING, GLENN DUNLAP, SR., KAREN S. DUNN, JAMES O. ECHOLS, JR., ALLEN EDENFIELD, BRIAN KEITH EDMUNDS, KERRY EDWARDS, DONALD J. ENFINGER, TIMOTHY ESTEP, RETINA D. FELTON, DAN FORCE, JERRY C. FORSYTH, JR., KERRY S. FRASIER, DALE T. FREDERICKS, BILLY R. FULKS, CHARLES FUTCH, EDWARD L. GANNOM, RODOLFO GARCIA, JR., BRIAN D. GARTNER, MARINA GIBSON, AMOS GIBSON, IV, ROBERT GILL, MERLE GOARCKE, DONALD WAYNE GRAHAM, GABRIELSON GREER, BRIAN DONALD HAGAN, GORDAN R. HAGGARD, RANDALL E. HAND, GEORGE A. HARGROVE, BETH HARGROVE, J. BRIAN HARRELL, LAVADA YVONNE HARRELL, LUTHER F. HARTER, BRENDA A. HEARN, JOE HEATHERLY, II, STEPHEN HENRIKSEN, BENJAMIN JAMES HOCKENSMITH, JAMES HODGE, FLOYD HOWARD, SCOTT L. HOYLE, THOMAS W. HUTCHESON, WALDEMAR ROSARIO INIGO, ERVIN A. JACKSON, NATHANIEL V. JACKSON, LANCE E. JAMES, DAVID L. JARNIGAN, TRACEY JERMON, BOBBY LEE JOHNSON, DONALD L. JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER JONES, MICHAEL J. JONES, EDWARD J. JONES, JR., DAMON KENNEDY, MANUEL KING, MARK B. KING, JAMES W. LANKFORD, CARMON M. LARUE, RENEE C. LEE, JAY JIMMIE LEE LEGGETT, KRISTIE LEGGETT, JEANNE LEROUX, CEDRIC W. LINDSEY, ALVIN LEVON LOVETT, HORACE DAVID LOWMAN, G. ERIC MALLARD, SHAWN R. MANNING, PRIMUS MANSFIELD, JR., JOSEPH TODD MARTEL, ROBERT G. MASSEY, WILLIAM ROBERT MATHIS, JR., ALLEN MATTHEWS, RONNIE D. MAULDIN, EDWARD F. MAURO, REGINALD B. MCEUEN, RONALD H. MCGOWAN, JR., DIANE L. MCGRIFF, NORWOOD B. MCQUAIG, JR., JAMES Q. MCRAE, III, JONATHAN MEAD, JANET MEDDERS, RICKEY MILES, CAMI MILLER, RANDY MILTON, NASH D. MITCHELL, BENJAMIN MOORE, JOHNNY E. MOORE, PATRICK C. MOORE, OSCAR J. MOORE, JUSTIN MORAN, DELMA L. MOSELEY, JOSEPH MOSELEY, WAYNE MOSELEY, JAMES C. MOYE, LAWRENCE R. NANOY, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

Prior History:  [**1] Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Emily C. Hewitt.

Adair v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 65, 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 49 (2006)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

hazard, regulations, exposure, toxic chemical, money-mandating, differentials, hardship, employees, implement regulations, merits, smoke, Tucker Act, Classification, conditions, deference, chemical, enhanced, severe, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, legislative history, working conditions, occupational safety, trial court, environmental, containers, damages, inmates

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Responses, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Limited Jurisdiction, Governments, Federal Government, Claims By & Against, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Deference to Agency Statutory Interpretation, Legislation, Interpretation, Employees & Officials