Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv.

846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1988)

 

RULE:

If a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction challenges the truth of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, the district court may consider relevant evidence in order to resolve the factual dispute.

FACTS:

The Plaintiff employee was separated from her employment with the federal government and appealed the separation. A hearing examiner recommended a demotion instead of a separation. Subsequently, the employee was demoted and transferred to an installation in a different state. Employee filed suit in the district court for back pay, reinstatement, and reassignment. The government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the employee filed an amended complaint for damages from breach of contract. The district court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Tucker Act because there was no evidence that the employee held her position under a contract of employment, hence, it dismissed the case.

ISSUE:

Did the district court properly dismiss Reynold’s case for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Tucker Act based on submitted evidence?

ANSWER:

No.

CONCLUSION:

The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Reynold’s case for lack of Tucker Art jurisdiction. The Court posited that the district court erroneously found that the employee did not serve under contract based on a determination that all regular employees were appointed under the government's personnel policies manual because the manual addressed employment by appointment and under contract.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.