Case ID: cl-ct_26/html/1119-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "YOCK, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James A. ALBRIGHT, et al. v. The UNITED STATES.
    Nos. 268-84C, 400-84C, 316-85C, 526-87C.
    United States Claims Court.
    Sept. 11, 1992.
    As Amended Sept. 23, 1992.
    
      Alan Banov, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
    Patrick W. Johnson, Washington, D.C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen., Stuart M. Gerson, for defendant.
   ORDER

YOCK, Judge.

This civilian overtime and premium pay dispute is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed on June 4, 1990. For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Facts

All the plaintiffs in this case are guards employed by the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The dispute centers around entitlement to overtime, night differential, Sunday premium, and holiday pay. Plaintiffs contend that they were not compensated for the approximately twenty minutes per day they spent performing preshift and postshift duties such as attending roll call, checking out and returning items like keys and weapons, and briefing the next shift. Plaintiffs claim that these duties, which were actually, but not officially, part of their principal work and the time spent in performing them, were more than de minimis. Therefore, they claim that they are entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1988), and overtime, night differential, Sunday premium, and holiday pay under the Federal Employees Pay Act (FEPA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 5542, 5544, 5546 (1988).

This case is actually a consolidation of four class action suits. All plaintiffs are present or former members of a union, the American Federation of Government Employees AFL-CIO (AFGE). All are, or were previously, bound by collective bargaining agreements between the AFGE and the BOP. These agreements contained grievance arbitration provisions which allowed employees to grieve their wage claims by submitting them to arbitration.

The first collective bargaining agreement was reached before the effective date of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Pub.L. No. 95-454, 91 Stat. 1111, which was January 11, 1979. This agreement covered the period from June 1, 1978 to November 30, 1979, but apparently remained in effect until a new collective bargaining agreement was reached on September 15, 1981.

This 1978 agreement contains Article Twenty-nine which summarizes the grievance procedure. According to Article Twenty-nine’s provisions, its purpose was to “provide the exclusive procedure for the consideration and resolution of grievances” while only excluding “statutory appeal procedures and matters excluded from mandatory negotiations by Executive Order 11491 * * *.” The Executive order directed that such appeal procedures could not cover matters for which there was a statutory appeal procedure. The September 15, 1981, collective bargaining agreement and all subsequent agreements contained broadly written grievance and arbitration procedures that allowed grievances to be submitted on any matters that would be properly grievable under the section 7121 of the CSRA.

In their complaint before this Court, the plaintiffs assert that, for various reasons, their claims do not have to be grieved under the collective bargaining agreement and that they can sue for recovery directly in this Court. The defendant counters that the CSRA, which comprehensively overhauled the pre-existing structure for handling claims by federal employees, bars all but one category of plaintiffs from bringing suit directly in this Court for claims arising during the course of their employment.

Discussion

As an initial matter, this Court must decide whether the amounts of time claimed by the plaintiffs are sufficient to warrant an award of overtime pay. Based on Abrahams v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 305 (1982), the time expended each day must be at least ten minutes or more; anything less is considered de minimis and will not support an award of overtime pay. Abrahams, 1 Cl.Ct. at 311. If plaintiffs can prove that the uncompensated time was over ten minutes per day, they then can overcome the de minimus hurdle.

Turning to the major issues in this case, this Court must keep in mind that the CSRA is “an elaborate remedial system that has been constructed step by step, with careful attention to conflicting policy considerations * * *.” Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 388, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 2417, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983). Additionally, the CSRA’s “integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review” has been interpreted to foreclose an avenue to the courts that, prior to enactment of the CSRA, had been open to federal employees by statute. Carter v. Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1452, 1456 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 46, 112 L.Ed.2d 22 (1990). Congress, through the CSRA, “narrowly circumscribed the role of the judiciary in its carefully crafted civil service scheme.” Id.

The main provision of the CSRA concerning grievance procedures is 5 U.S.C. § 7121(a)(1) and (2) (1988). It reads as follows:

(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, any collective bargaining agreement shall provide procedures for the settlement of grievances, including questions of arbitrability. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the procedures shall be the exclusive procedures for resolving grievances which fall within its coverage.
(2) Any collective bargaining agreement may exclude any matter from the application of the grievance procedures which are provided for in the agreement.

Thus, the issue is whether the exclusive grievance procedure mandated by section 7121 of the CSRA, as construed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Carter, and Harris v. United States, 841 F.2d 1097 (Fed.Cir. 1988), compels dismissal of the claims of all the plaintiffs. In short, the answer is yes for those plaintiffs who were part of a bargaining unit covered by a collective bargaining agreement when their claims arose.

According to the Federal Circuit in Carter, a collective bargaining agreement must specifically exclude FLSA overtime issues to preserve judicial review of overtime claims. Carter, 909 F.2d at 1458. The CSRA, 5 U.S.C. § 7121, requires that issues that are not specifically excluded in the agreement have to be brought under the negotiated grievance procedure specified in the agreement. Thus, the overtime issues which were not excluded must be pursued under the negotiated grievance procedures, and review in the courts is not allowed. Carter, 909 F.2d at 1455. The collective bargaining agreements between plaintiffs’ union, the AFGE, and plaintiffs’ employer, the BOP, did not specifically exclude FLSA or FEPA overtime issues. Plaintiffs do not dispute that this pay dispute is a “grievance” within the meaning of the CSRA, 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(9) (1988). But, while Carter is clearly binding precedent on this Court, it is only obviously dispositive with respect to some of the plaintiffs here.

Plaintiffs appear to fall into four categories based on their employment status and the collective bargaining agreement under which they are covered. Also, this Court notes that some plaintiffs may come under more than one category. The first category covers plaintiffs whose claims arose after September 15, 1981, the date of the first collective bargaining agreement reached after the effective date of the CSRA, and who are still covered by the collective bargaining agreements that the AFGE and the BOP reached after the effective date of the CSRA, and who were never supervisors. The second category covers plaintiffs whose claims arose before the September 15, 1981, collective bargaining agreement was executed. The third category covers plaintiffs who are no longer members of the AFGE. The fourth category covers plaintiffs who were excluded from coverage of the collective bargaining agreement because they were supervisors. For purposes of analysis, this Court will consider each category separately.

Category 1. Plaintiffs whose claims arose after September 15, 1981, who are still covered by the collective bargaining agreements between AFGE and BOP that were reached after the effective date of the CSRA, and were never supervisors or otherwise excluded from the collective bargaining agreements.

While Carter dealt only with claims brought under the FLSA, this Court believes the rationale is equally applicable to claims brought under the FEPA. Regardless of whether or not the claim is for overtime pay under the FLSA, or overtime, night differential, premium, or holiday pay under the FEPA, the issue is the CSRA’s preemption of Claims Court jurisdiction over these type claims by federal employees. As the Federal Circuit held in Carter, the CSRA made grievance procedures contained in collective bargaining agreements the exclusive method of resolving disputes between the parties to those agreements. If the union and the employer chose not to exempt pay disputes from their negotiated grievance process, the court has no jurisdiction over the dispute. Carter, 909 F.2d at 1458. In this case, the AFGE and the BOP did not exempt pay disputes from the collective bargaining agreement they signed in September, 1981. Thus, this group of plaintiffs is essentially identical to those in Carter, and their claims, which arose after September 15, 1981, must be dismissed in view of the court’s decision in that case.

Category 2. Plaintiffs whose claims arose before September 15, 1981, the date of the first collective bargaining agreement concluded by the AFGE and the BOP after the enactment of the CSRA.

According to the plaintiffs, a number of them seek back pay for work they performed before the effective date of the CSRA and before the first collective bargaining agreement concluded under the CSRA. Plaintiffs aver that it would be inappropriate, unfair, and possibly unconstitutional to apply the Harris and Carter interpretations of 5 U.S.C. § 7121 retroactively because this Court previously recognized these claims under pre-existing statutes, the FEPA and the FLSA.

Defendant asserts that the CSRA clearly reflects Congress’ intent that the statute be applied in all cases that were not already pending. The Government submits that the CSRA was a rational means to further a legitimate legislative purpose: narrowing the role of the judiciary and elevating the role of the arbitrator in resolving disputes between the Government and its employees. Therefore, its retroactive application was intended by Congress and is constitutional.

The issue of retroactive application of the CSRA, 5 U.S.C. § 7121, to grievance procedures should first be approached by looking for whatever guidance the CSRA itself may provide. Two other sections of the CSRA, 5 U.S.C. § 7135 (1988) and a note to 5 U.S.C. § 1101 (1988) labeled “Savings Provision,” Act of Oct. 13, 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-454, Title IX, § 902, 92 Stat. 1223 (effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, as provided by section 907 of such Act), offer some guidance.

The section of the CSRA entitled “Continuation of existing laws, recognitions, agreements, and procedures,” 5 U.S.C. § 7135, reads as follows:

(a) Nothing contained in this chapter shall preclude—
(1) the renewal or continuation of an exclusive recognition, certification of an exclusive representative, or a lawful agreement between an agency and an exclusive representative of its employees, which is entered into before the effective date of this chapter; or
(2) the renewal, continuation, or initial according of recognition for units of management officials or supervisors represented by labor organizations which historically or traditionally represent management officials or supervisors in private industry and which hold exclusive recognition for units of such officials or supervisors in any agency on the effective date of this chapter.
(b) Policies, regulations, and procedures established under and decisions issued under Executive Orders 11491, 11616, 11636, 11787, and 11838, or under any other Executive order, as in effect on the effective date of this chapter, shall remain in full force and effect until revised or revoked by the President, or unless superseded by specific provisions of this chapter or by regulations or decisions issued pursuant to this chapter.

Section 7135(b) refers to an Executive order, Exec. Order No. 11,491, 3 C.F.R. 861 (1966-1977), reprinted as amended in 5 U.S.C. § 7101 note (1988), which applied to the pre-CSRA bargaining agreement. Under section 7135(b), this Court must see if the Executive order has been superseded by a specific provision of the CSRA, namely 5 U.S.C. § 7121. Section 13 of Exec. Order No. 11,491 provided that:

(a) An agreement between an agency and a labor organization shall provide a procedure, applicable only to the unit, for the consideration of grievances. The coverage and scope of the procedures shall be negotiated by the parties to the agreement with the exception that it may not cover matters for which a statutory appeal procedure exists * * *.

In considering section 7135(b) and Exec. Order No. 11,491, plaintiff urges us to follow the holding of Amos v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 724 (1991). In that case, the Court examined 5 U.S.C. §§ 7121, 7135, Exec. Order No. 11,491, and a Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) decision that interpreted Exec. Order No. 11,491. The FLRA decision dealt with section 7135 and its relation to section 13 of the Executive order in Interpretation and Guidance, 2 F.L.R.A. 274 (1979). It found that, while section 7121 superseded Exec. Order No. 11,491, under section 7135(a) the preexisting collective bargaining agreement still controlled until it was changed by the parties. Thus, section 7121 of the CSRA was not applied retroactively because, under section 7135(a), the agreement continued until renegotiated by the parties.

The Amos court gave deference to the FLRA decision as being consistent with the statute and congressional policy. FLRA decisions are entitled to deference because of the FLRA’s expertise in the area of labor law. However, the Supreme Court also cautioned reviewing courts against adopting administrative decisions that they believe to be inconsistent with a statutory mandate or the congressional policy underlying a statute. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 464 U.S. 89, 97, 104 S.Ct. 439, 444, 78 L.Ed.2d 195 (1983); NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291-292, 85 S.Ct. 980, 988-989, 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965). After a review of the relevant case law, it appears to this Court that the administrative decision of the FLRA was contrary to the congressional policy underlying the CSRA. Therefore, this Court respectfully disagrees with the Amos decision, which was based upon the FLRA decision, and holds that the CSRA made the grievance procedures in the collective bargaining agreement the exclusive method of redress for claims brought after the enactment of the CSRA, even if those claims arose during the course of employment before the enactment of the CSRA.

The defendant argues that Carter and Harris, along with the note to 5 U.S.C. § 1101 labeled “Savings Provision,” show that it was Congress’ intent that the CSRA be applied retroactively in all but a narrow category of cases. The Savings Provision of 5 U.S.C. § 1101 note states that no provision of the CSRA “shall affect any administrative proceedings pending at the time such provision takes effect. Orders shall be issued in such proceedings and appeals shall be taken therefrom as if this Act had not been enacted.” The Merit Systems Protection Board promulgated a regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.191(b) (1988), that says “pending” in the Savings Provision means agency proceedings and appeals that were subject to judicial review or under judicial review on the date the CSRA became effective. In Wilson v. Turnage, 791 F.2d 151, 155-56 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 988, 107 S.Ct. 580, 93 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986), and Oliveira v. United States, 827 F.2d 735, 737 (Fed.Cir.1987), the Federal Circuit held that this Court is governed by that regulation in applying the Savings Provision.

Based on this regulation, it is clear that the plaintiffs’ claims were not pending on or before the effective date of the CSRA and do not escape application of the CSRA under the Savings Provision. Relying on Department of the Air Force v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 775 F.2d 727 (6th Cir.1985), and Denton v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 768 F.2d 422 (D.C.Cir.1985), the defendant avers that the Savings Provision indicates Congress’ intent that only pending cases were saved from the retroactive effect of the CSRA and that inchoate claims, such as those of the plaintiffs, were subject to the CSRA, even if they arose before its effective date. This Court agrees with the defendant’s interpretation of Denton. In that case, the court examined the Savings Provision of the CSRA and its limitation to actions that were already pending as of the enactment of the CSRA. The court reasoned that the CSRA preserved the pre-existing remedies only for claims which were already filed at the time of enactment and that any claims which were not yet filed, but in existence, were subject to the new procedures embodied in the CSRA. Otherwise, as the court noted,

Under the parties’ jurisdictional view, however, there is no end in sight to federal district court jurisdiction over agency personnel actions so long as employees seek to challenge an agency action taken prior to the CSRA’s effective date. This would be, when all is said and done, a rewriting of the savings clause, at great cost to the orderly administration of justice which Congress sought to effectuate in the FCIA. That is to say that the savings clause language, “any administrative proceeding pending,” would otherwise be twisted to mean, “any agency action taken prior to the CSRA’s effective date, regardless of when that action was first challenged by the employee.”

Denton, 768 F.2d at 425. See also, Department of the Air Force, 775 F.2d at 734 (because claim was not a pending administrative proceeding at the time of the enactment of the CSRA, the claim is not insulated from the application of the CSRA by the savings clause).

Thus, under the reasoning of Denton, because Congress did not specifically exempt inchoate claims from the provisions of the CSRA, but did specifically exempt pending claims, Congress intended the inchoate claims to be subject to the provisions of the CSRA, including the exclusive remedies for grievances. Several cases support the view that, due to the comprehensive nature of the CSRA, the absence of a provision in the CSRA for direct judicial review for certain actions is evidence of Congress’ intent that no direct judicial review of these actions be available, even though it was previously available before the enactment of the CSRA. See also Pinar v. Dole, 747 F.2d 899, 910 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1016, 105 S.Ct. 2019, 85 L.Ed.2d 301 (1985) (“The absence of a provision for direct judicial review of prohibited personnel actions among the carefully structured remedial provisions of the CSRA is evidence of Congress’ intent that no judicial review in district court be available for the actions involved in this case.”); Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 174 (D.C.Cir.1983) (failure to include some types of personnel action within the remedial scheme of so comprehensive a piece of legislation reflects a congressional intention that no judicial relief be available).

In United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 108 S.Ct. 668, 98 L.Ed.2d 830 (1988), the Supreme Court had to determine whether, under the CSRA, the “withholding of remedy was meant to preclude judicial review for those employees, or rather merely to leave them free to pursue the remedies that had been available before enactment of the CSRA.” Id. at 443-444, 108 S.Ct. at 672. The Court found that, based on the legislative history of the statute,

A leading purpose of the CSRA was to replace the haphazard arrangements for administrative and judicial review of personnel action, part of the “outdated patchwork of statutes and rules built up over almost a century” that was the civil service system * * *.

Id., 484 U.S. at 444, 108 S.Ct. at 672. Accordingly, Congress replaced the old patchwork system with the CSRA, which is “an integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review, designed to balance the legitimate interests of the various categories of federal employees with the needs of sound and efficient administration.” Id. at 445, 108 S.Ct. at 672. Thus, based on the context of the entire statutory scheme, the Supreme Court determined that the failure of the CSRA to provide certain employees a judicial remedy displayed a clear congressional intent to deny those employees such judicial review. Id. at 447, 108 S.Ct. at 673.

Defendant has made a strong argument based on Carter and Harris that the CSRA closed an avenue to the courts that was previously open to federal employees, Carter, 909 F.2d at 1456, and that, unless the claim satisfies the Savings Provision of 5 U.S.C. § 1101 note, this Court should not reopen this avenue. Following the guidance of the Supreme Court in Fausto, and the views of the courts in Denton, Carducci, and Pinar, this Court holds that, although before the CSRA the plaintiffs could choose not to grieve their pay dispute and bring that dispute directly before this Court, this avenue of redress did not survive the enactment of the CSRA. This is because the CSRA made mandatory the grievance procedures in the collective bargaining agreement between the AFGE and the BOP. The previous right to judicial review was preserved by the Savings Provision only for claims which were already pending at the time of the CSRA’s enactment. Therefore, the grievance procedure in their collective bargaining agreement is plaintiffs’ sole recourse, and it applies to claims which arose before enactment of the CSRA, but which were inchoate at the time of the CSRA’s enactment and thus were not exempted from the effect of the CSRA under its Savings Provision.

However, this does not fully dispose of these plaintiffs’ claims because they may pursue those avenues of redress provided in their 1979 collective bargaining agreement. Article Twenty-nine of the 1979 agreement required that all claims be grieved except for statutory appeal procedures and matters excluded from mandatory negotiations by Exec. Order No. 11,491. As noted earlier, the Executive order provided that the collective bargaining agreement could not cover matters for which a statutory appeal procedure exists. Thus, if the plaintiffs’ claims were ones that had a statutory appeal procedure in place for their resolution, then these claims did not have to be grieved under the collective bargaining agreement.

In Beall v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 59 (1990), the Court considered whether, under the CSRA, the exclusion from grievance procedures of claims for which a statutory appeal or complaint system has been implemented preserved the jurisdiction of the United States Claims Court over FLSA violations. The Beall court determined that this Court’s jurisdiction over such violations did not constitute a statutory appeal or complaint system because, first, plaintiffs’ claims have not yet been addressed so there is no appeal to this Court and, second, the generalized jurisdictional grant for such violations “hardly constitutes a complaint system.” Beall, 22 Cl.Ct. at 61. Instead, the court found that “the exclusion was a reference to well-defined, statutorily articulated procedures for resolving complaints, such as those heard by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority.” Id. (Footnotes omitted.) Also, the Court determined that Carter requires that an exclusion from grievance procedures be specific and that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the exclusion for claims subject to statutory appeals and complaint systems was far too broad in that it “would exclude from the grievance procedure virtually any dispute that could be brought in another forum.” Id.

The plaintiffs urge this Court to follow the Amos case, which held that FLSA claims had a right of statutory appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and so did not have to be grieved under the collective bargaining agreement. Id., 22 Cl.Ct. at 733. The court in Amos reasoned that, because claimants had a statutory appeal available to the CSC for FLSA claims, the Claims Court had jurisdiction over these FLSA claims, even after the CSRA, because, before the CSRA, the claimants could also have chosen not to pursue the statutory appeal and instead sued directly in federal court. Id. However, this Court finds such reasoning too expansive and instead agrees more with the specific inquiry of the court in Beall; namely, is a suit in the Claims Court a statutory appeal procedure? Based on the reasoning in Beall, the answer is clearly no. This view also has strong support in Fausto, where the Supreme Court noted that before the CSRA, “employees sought to appeal the decisions of the CSC, or the agency decision unreviewed by the CSC, to the district courts through the various forms of action traditionally used for so-called nonstatutory review of agency action, including suits for mandamus * * *.” Id., 484 U.S. at 444, 108 S.Ct. at 672 (emphasis added). Thus, because a suit in the Claims Court is not part of a statutory appeal system, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the claims of this class of employees whose claims arose before the date of the first collective bargaining agreement concluded by the AFGE and the BOP after the enactment of the CSRA.

In summary, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the claims of the plaintiffs in Category 2. This is because, after the enactment of the CSRA, the grievance procedure in the plaintiffs’ collective bargaining agreement became their sole avenue of redress for all claims, except for those that were already pending. However, the plaintiffs’ claims were not pending, but were inchoate, at the time the CSRA was enacted. Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, its grievance procedure applied to all claims except for those for which a statutory appeal procedure exists. Because a suit in this Court is not part of a statutory appeal procedure, the exception to the mandatory grievance procedure does not apply, and the claims must be grieved. Thus, this Court must dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs in Category 2 for lack of jurisdiction.

Category 3. Plaintiffs who are no longer members of the AFGE.

Plaintiffs argue that employees who, through retirement, resignation, or dismissal, are no longer members of the AFGE cannot invoke the grievance arbitration procedure, and thus, Carter should not apply. The Government contends that the grievance provisions of the collective bargaining agreements have been interpreted both by the AFGE and the BOP to cover the grievances of former employees, and Carter applies in all its force. Furthermore, defendant submits that all these claims arose when plaintiffs had access to the grievance procedure and should have been grieved at that time.

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confronted this question directly. In the case of Muniz v. United States, 972 F.2d 1304, 1313 (Fed.Cir.1992), the court determined that an employee’s claim that arose during the course of his employment under a collective bargaining agreement can only be removed from the grievance and arbitration process by the explicit agreement of the parties and that the termination of employee status does not exclude disputes from arbitration if the disputes concern rights that accrued during employment. See also Aamodt v. United States, 972 F.2d 1304, 1313 (Fed.Cir.1992) 976 F.2d 691, 692 (“[A] change in ‘employee’ status after a claim arises does not affect the applicability of the bargaining agreement under which the claim arose. In such circumstances the applicability of the agreement survives the change in status * * *.”) Because the plaintiffs in this category are in the same position as the plaintiffs in Muniz and Aamodt, based on this new, clear precedent, their claims must be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such claims.

Category 4. Plaintiffs who were excluded from the coverage of the collective bargaining agreement.

Both parties agree that supervisors and other management officials are outside the collective bargaining unit, and, thus, they cannot file grievances under the AFGE contract. Therefore, Carter would not apply if those plaintiffs were supervisors for the entire time period during which their claims arose.

Since the parties agree that at least some plaintiffs in this group continue to have viable claims after Carter, the Court will not dismiss any of the supervisor claims at this point. Plaintiffs submit that none of the claims of the supervisors should be dismissed, including those claims that fall into Categories 1, 2, and 3, as long as the plaintiff also has Category 4 claims. Defendant stresses that 5 U.S.C. § 7121 provides that the only remedy for a plaintiff who has access to the grievance procedure is the procedure itself, and any claim for additional pay that arose while an individual plaintiff was not a supervisor is precluded. This Court agrees with the defendant and directs that only the claims of the Category 4 plaintiffs that arose while these plaintiffs were supervisors and out of the collective bargaining unit may continue in this Court. If a Category 4 plaintiff also has claims that fall into other categories, these claims are dismissed for the reasons given herein.

In an appendix to this order, Appendix A, this Court has listed all the Category 4 plaintiffs whose claims relating to their tenure as supervisors survive this motion to dismiss. The defendant has been unable to verify the claims of some of these plaintiffs, and the parties do not agree on the inclusion of all of these plaintiffs in Category 4. These disputed claims are noted in Appendix A, and they too will continue, subject to the parties’ ability to prove the factual basis for their inclusion in this category.

The resolution of the issues involving the claims of supervisors will require particularly fact intensive determinations, such as when each plaintiff became a supervisor and when did the claim arise. Thus further factual ventilation would be beneficial. Philadelphia Suburban Corp. v. United States, 217 Ct.Cl. 705, 707 (1978). It is possible that Hess v. IRS, 892 F.2d 1019 (Fed.Cir.1989) will bar some of the claims, but the Court need not now reach that issue at this point. Also, as supervisors, the plaintiffs will have to prove their entitlement to overtime and other premium pay under the FEPA and the FLSA.

In addition, the plaintiffs should be aware that the statute of limitations will apply and may bar some plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs are claiming under the FEPA, which has a six year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (1988) and the FLSA, which has either a two or three year statutory limit. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) (1988) and Hickman v. United States, 10 Cl.Ct. 550, 552 (1986). To come under the three year statute, the plaintiffs must meet the test for willful violations of the FLSA. They must show that the BOP failed to pay overtime and that there is an “absence of a significant uncertainty whether the FLSA applies to cover an employee.” Hickman 10 Cl.Ct. at 554.

In sum, the plaintiffs in this category must prove the basis for both their FEPA and FLSA claims. Therefore, the determination of which act and which statute of limitations will apply to any particular Category 4 (supervisor) claim is left for another day. Based on the guidelines given above, the parties should look to the timing and the types of claims in order to address the statute of limitations and other legal and factual issues raised.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted in part, and denied in part. This Court lacks jurisdiction over three of the four groups of plaintiffs, those who fall into Categories 1, 2, and 3. Those plaintiffs who are to be dismissed are listed in Appendix B. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaints as to the plaintiffs listed in Appendix B, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the United States Claims Court, there being no further just reason for delay. This Court has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs in Category 4 (see Appendix A), and the claims of those plaintiffs are not to be dismissed and may proceed into discovery, A status conference is hereby scheduled for 10 a.m., November 13, 1992, at the National Courts Building, Washington, D.C., in order that the parties may advise the Court as to how they plan to proceed with the remaining plaintiffs in these rapidly aging cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

APPENDIX A

Category 4 Plaintiffs

APPENDIX B

Plaintiffs Who Are To Be Dismissed IN THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT

No. 268-84C

1. JAMES A. ALBRIGHT

2.

3. MAUREEN L. ASHLOCK

4. JOE H. BAGWELL

5. DONNA L. BAXTER

6. RICK G. BENDA

7. GORDON D. BENNETT

8.

9. JOHN M. BENTINE

10. RONNIE G. BERRY

11.

12. DENISE BLADE-TIGGENS

13. DONALD G. BLAIR

14. CLARENCE BOOE, JR.

15. BRUCE A. BORCHERT

16. DENNIS BOYDSTON

17. DARRELL L. BRADLEY

18. CLARENCE F. BREIER

19. SUSAN L. BRENGLE

20. CLAUDE VERNON BRESHEARS

21. WILLIAM HENRY BROOKES

22. LOIS W. BROWN

23.

24. WILLIAM F. BROWN

25. GARY K. BURTON

26.

27.

28. D.L. CASTROP

29. WILLIAM W. CHAPMAN

30. JACK A. CHRISTIAN

31. MARK W. CISKE

32. DONALD CLAIR

33.

34. BARRY E. CLAY

35. THOMAS M. CORDLE

36. LAWRENCE E. CORRELL

37. CLYDE COUCH

38. WILLIAM G. COX

39. DANIEL FRANK CURTIS

40. DAVID L. DAVIS

41. WILLIAM DECKER

42. CLARENCE A. DEERING

43. DONALD DEAN DEMSHAR

44. DANIEL W. DOSHIER

45. WESLEY LEE DUNTON

46. CARL E. EASLEY

47. JOSEPH R. EDDINGTON

48. RON K. EDGE

49. DWAYNE R. EDWARDS

50. BILLY ELKINS

51.

52.

53. ROBERT EMMONS

54.

55.

56. GARY L. EVANS

57. ROBERT E. FAIRFIELD

58. REX D. FAUGHT

59. KAREN L. FEARL

60. VINCENT JIMMY FICALORE

61. RONALD G. FIRESTONE

62. JAMES D. FLEMAL

63. OTIS FOBBS, JR.

64. MARY FORD

65.

66.

67. GAYLORD F. GAYNOR

68. JOHN A. GENDE

69. GARY D. GENTRY

70. ERNEST A. GIBSON

71. JANICE GIBSON

72. ROBERT R. GLOVER

73. BARBARA SUSAN GOBETZ

74.

75. DAWNA S. GOMEZ

76. FRANCIS J. GOMEZ, JR.

77.

78. CRAIG D. GRAHAM

79. STEVEN K. GRASSEL

80. JEFFREY K. GRAVES

81. ETHEL B. GRIFFITH

82. MICHAEL L. GROTEFEND

83. ROBERT J. HAMILTON

84. JOE C. HAMPTON

85.

86.

87.

88. THOMAS F. HENEGHAN

89. THOMAS G. HENNING

90. LIONEL HENNINGS

91. JAMES R. HENRY

92. JAMES F. HICKERSON

93. KENNETH D. HIGGENS

94. DARRELL W. HINDS

95. RODNEY D. HITCHCOCK

96. MARK W. HOLDEN

97. MINOR LEE HOLLAN

98. LARRY J. HOOD

99. JAMES CLYDE HOWARD

100. DOUGLAS M. HUDSON

101. WILBUR J. HUDSON

102.

103. ROGER DEAN HUFFMAN

104.

105. WILLIAM ISAACSON

106. STEVEN R. JARVIS

107. MICHAEL J. JENSON

108.

109. NELVA JEAN JOHNSON

110. JAMES R. JOHNSTON

111. JERRY JOHNSTON

112. DONALD J. KABERLINE

113. ROBERT DAVID KELLEY

114. RICHARD KEMNITZ

115.

116. HAROLD D. KIRK

117. WALTER R. KITTS

118. MICHAEL D. KLAWITTER

119. HOWARD W. KNOTT

120. RICHARD A. LAABS

121. DENNIS S. LAKE

122. N.D. LEIFER

123. JOHN R. LINN

124. JOE LISTERMAN

125. RAY A. LIVINGSTON

126. BERNARD NELSON LOOMIS

127. KAREN KAY MABRY

128. CARL R. MAGGARD

129. BILL J. MAIN

130. GAYLAND M. MAIZE

131. THOMAS J. MAJORS

132. WILLIAM R. MAURER

133. MICHAEL A. MCDANIEL

134. NEAL R. MCINTURFF

135. DONALD R. MCNURLIN

136. DONALD L. MCWHORTER

137. RONALD GENE MELTON

138. MERLIN E. MEYER

139. LEROY MIDDLETON

140. DIANE MITTELSTEDT

141. JULIE A. MITTELSTEDT

142. JOHN T. MOONINGHAM

143. RONALD LEE MOORE

144. ROOSEVELT MOORE

145. FRANKLIN L. MORSE

146. DENNIS MOSHER

147. FRED A. MUELLER

148. STEVEN D. MYRICK

149. CYNTHIA G. NEHL

150. RONALD J. NELSON

151. CLYDE H. NORMAN, SR.

152. SIDNEY A. NYHOLM

153. RICK J.J. OLIVER

154. BENNY L. OWENS

155.

156. JERRY F. PEARSON

157. DONALD L. PELGER

158. RALPH P. PHILLIPS

159.

160.

161. MARK L. POLLOCK

162. MONTE R. POWELL

163. ARMANDO D. PRADO

164. RANDALL L. PROEBER

165. WAYNE R. PROGEN

166. DAVID QUINN

167. GARY L. RAGAIN

168. ALBERT RAKESTRAW

169. JEROME R. RANDALL

170. GARY W. REA

171. DENNIS E. ROBERTS

172. HILDRED E. ROBINSON

173. DONALD JOE ROSE

174. DAVID R. ROSS

175. DEBORAH A. ROSS

176. ARGUS W. RUSSELL, JR.

177. GLENN A. SARBER

178. LYNN M. SARBER

179. TERRY L. SAUNDERS

180. RICHARD SCALZO

181. EDWARD D. SCHNEIDER, JR.

182. RALPH J. SCHULZ

183. BOYDE E. SCOTT

184. JAMES CLAYTON SHANE

185. CHARLES A. SICKMYRE

186.

187. ROBERT ALAN SIMPSON

188.

189. JOHN W. SMALL

190. HARRY C. SMITH

191. LAWRENCE R. SMITH, JR.

192. LYLE H. SNYDER

193. RANDY L. SOENKSEN

194. GARY E. STAMMEN

195. DONALD C. STARK

196. CLIFFORD STEENHOFF

197.

198. WAYNE D. STEPHENS

199. JERRY C. STIRMAN

200.

201. DANIEL E. TETZLAFF

202. JAMES W. THONTON

203. WILLIE TIGGENS, JR.

204. NEREIDA TORRES

205. LARRY D. TRANTHAM

206.

207. LYMAN A. TURNER

208. TEDDY V. VERFURTH

209. PETER J. WARD

210. LEVI WARREN

211. KENNETH R. WHEELER

212. RONALD E. WHILEY

213. WILLIAM D. WHITSON

214. DANIEL R. WILKEN

215. DEWAYNE R. WILLIAMS

216. ELVA L. WILLIAMS

217. JUDITH ANNE WILLIAMS

218. ROY E. WILLIAMS

219. RONALD S. WOODS

220. DAVID B. YAISER

221.

222. WANDA YOUNG

223.

224. KENT L. ZOOK

IN THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT

No. 400-84C

1. Joe E. Adams

2.

3. Robert D. Adams, Jr.

4. Donnie E. Aleshire

5.

6. Walter Paul Alef

7. Coralyn Alexander Brown

8. Woodie W. Allen, III

9.

10. Robert E. Alvis

11. Gary D. Amstutz

12. James A. Anderson

13. Danny R. Asher

14. John P. Aton

15. Donald Banner

16. Thomas E. Beck, Jr.

17. Charles Dudley Beckham

18.

19. Anna L. Behrens

20.

21. Daniel V. Bellotte

22. James Benford

23. Herbert Y. Betts

24. Edward F. Bequette

25. Solomon P. Bidding

26. Thomas P. Blackwell

27. Domingo (Domini) Blanco

28. Robert G. Blanke

29. John W. Bloom

30. Ronald L. Boatwright

31. George A. Bolner

32. Charles T. Bolog

33.

34. Steve Robert Boreen

35. Paul F. Bosquez

36. Gary Bowen

37. Larry Bowers

38. Horace S. Boyd, Jr.

39. Timothy R. Boyle

40. Richard L. Brewer

41. James E. Bridgeforth

42. Thomas G. Brookie

43. Boyce D. Brown

44. Larry D. Brown

45.

46. Melvin Brown, Jr.

47. Jerry W. Burns

48. Warren E. Burton

49. Richard S. Byrd

50. Francis B. Caddell

51. Terry L. Cain

52.

53. George B. Carpenter

54. Richard S. Carter

55. Donna S. Casteel

56. Roger D. Catron

57. Kendall R. Chadwick

58. Glenn A. Chambard

59. Kenneth Chambard

60. Angel Chevere

61.

62.

63. Michael Church

64. Raymond Churchill

65. Patricia Joann Claspill Sharp

66. Donald B. Claxton

67. Douglas Clay

68.

69. James W. Clem

70. Cecil A. Clinton

71. Sharon Coard

72.

73. Hosie Coffee

74. Ivan Darrell Cooke

75. Albert D. Cooper

76. Joe E. Coronado, Jr.

77. T.J. Creek

78.

79. Eddie R. Curtis

80. Charles M. Daughtrey

81. Kenneth W. Dawson

82. Betty J. Decker

83. Harold De Jesus

84. Larry R. Dollarhide

85. Mose E. Dorsey

86. Ronald P. Doyon

87. Dean A. Drewitz

88. Edward J. Drust

89. George A. Dubaskas

90. Raymond N. Duke

91. Kenneth P. Dunn

92. Brenda M. Duran

93. Stephen L. Dusa

94. Robert P. Eisenbaugh

95. Larry W. Ellingsworth

96. William H. Ellis

97. Michael A. Escobedo

98.

99. Raymond L. Eskridge

100. Sharon Evans

101. Ivan L. Fail

102. Joseph Lewis Falzone

103. John M. Fazio

104. Michael A. Fetzer

105. Lewis K. Field

106. Thomas R. Foltz

107.

108. Richard V. Fortunato

109. Mark R. Freeman

110. Robert A. Fricke

111.

112. Robert E. Gering

113.

114. Ralph Lee Gezelman, III

115. James P. Glancy

116. Lynnford R. Godfrey

117. Wendell Goetz

118. Terry F. Goheen

119.

120.

121. M.D. Goodnight

122. Nelson Gorden, Jr.

123. Ron Gordon

124. John Gorski

125. Mark Granger

126. John L. Gray

127. Karen J. Gray

128. Lamar E. Gray

129. Richard R. Gregg

130. Thomas L. Gregory

131. Arthur Taylor Grissom, Jr.

132. Terry L. Groh

133. David Earl Hagood

134. Earl C. Haling

135. James W. Hall

136. Roger 0. Hanchett

137. Allie J. Hardgman

138. Royal Harder

139. Robert Y. Harper

140. Michael L. Hartman

141. Daniel R. Harvey

142. Samuel P. Hawkins

143. Charles Ray Heilig

144. Gary T. Henderson

145. Oather E. Henry

144. Lawrence Hensley, Jr.

146. Donald H. Herdina

147. Clifford A. Holdren

148. Loy J. Holliday

149. Lloyd Raymond Holmes

150. John F. Holtz

151. Mike Horton

151. Robert E. Howard

152.

153. Susan Marie (Huber) Wohlfert

154. Harry Lynn Huff

155.

156. Larry Joe Huse

157. John Hyland

158. James S. Irby

159. Gladstone L. James

160. Bernadine Johnson

161. Morris W. Johnson

162. Norman D. Johnson

163. Thomas J. Johnson

164.

165. William C. Jones

166. Sadie J. Jordan

167. George R. Judkins

168. Hulsey R. Jumper

169.

170.

171.

172. Bettye L. King

173. Robert L. Kinot

174.

175. Martin A. Kopnick

176. Stanley Kotlarczyk

177. John F. Kram

178. Robert Lewis Kyle

178. Edwin J. Lamborn

179. Ted R. Laney

180. Donald F. Lang

181.

182. Terry Lathrop

183.

184.

186. Lana E. Leyba

185. William E. Limpus

186. James A. Lollies

187. James M. Long, Jr.

188. Raul A. Lopez

189. Raymond D. Lorenz

190. Richard A. Lory

191. Alfred Lukima

192. Dante P. Marzetti

193.

194. John Allen Mattsen

195. Gary H. Maurer

196. Jim S. May

197. John Y. May

198. Charles T. McCalmon

199.

200. Haskel McCleskey

201. Raymond A. McClung

202. Philip H. McComas

203. Clydean McDaniel

204. John T. McGinnis

205. Nelson E. McKinley

208. William McNally

206. Dennis Charles Meeham

207. Mátt A. Midgley

208. David J. Mikel

209.

210. Carlo Rodger Mobley

211. Nicholas Monda

212. Michael T. Moore

213. Paul D. Moore

214. Leon J. Mormann

215. Glen A. Morris

216.

217. Douglas L. Moyer

218. Haneef A.R. Muhammad

219. Kenneth Lee Murphy

220. Y.E. Narvaez

221. Michael G. Nehl

222. Gary P. Nussman

223. Roger L. Oaks

224.

225. James R. Oliver

226. William R. O’Neal

227. Conrad C. Ortega

228. Larry T. Ortega

229. Evangelisto Ortiz

230.

231.

232. Michael A. Pennington

233. Kenneth Ward Perkins

234. James Person

235. Alvin S. Pettit

236. Harlan E. Phillips

237. Florence Philyaw

238. Henry L. Philyaw

239. Joseph E. Pierce

240. Randle Pierce

241. Danny Robert Porter

242. Phillip M. Potts

243. John W. Pounds

244. Robert L. Presley

245. Dale L. Ramey

246. Delbert H. Randles

247. A.G. Raney

248. Ronald L. Ray

249. Floyd Raymond

250. James F. Raynor

251. Charles B. Reed

252. Sherman Lee Rice

253.

254. Judy G. Riddle

255. Don L. Ring

256. Donna F. Roberds

257. Elmer R. Roberts

258. Steven D. Robertson

259. Jeremiah Robinson

260. Irvin F. Roehl

261. Frank Rolen, Jr.

262.

263. Lewis Rollings

264. Richard A. Rose

265. Earl G. Runyon

266. Bobby Gene Ruoff, Jr.

267.

268.

269. Steven Sakaguchi

270. Michael R. Sammons

271. German Sanchez

272. Richard Sanchez

273. Leslie A. Sapsford

274. Amy G. Schelcher

275. Judith M. Schmidtke

276. James P. Schubring

277. George H. Schultz

278. Jerome L. Schultz

279. Ray A. Schwarz

280. William Scopinich

281. Calvin W. Scott

282. Ed Scroggins

283. Rodney Sharp

284. James T. Shaw

285. Byron D. Sherrill

286.

287. George R. Sillavan

288.

289. Marvin Lawrence Slocum

290. Thomas J. Smith, IV

291. William A. Smith

292. Onix A. Soto

293. Richard M. Spartz

294. Willie Spears

295. Ricky Springer

296. Dianna Fay Stacy

297. Larry D. Steward

298. Michael E. Stewart

299. Wilbur L. Stewart

300. Michael Stinson

301. Robert W. Strouse

302. Patricia J. Sullivan

303. Michael B. Swires

304. Robbin Stanley Swokla

305.

306. James L. Teczar

307. Monte R. Temple

308.

309. Chern E. Thomas

310. Dennis A. Thompson

311. Mary Anne Thompson

312. William C. Thompson

313. Elmer H. Thomson

314. Michael Torrence

315. Patricia E. Triplett-Ali

316. Kevin M. Van Demark

317. Carl A. Vaughan

318. Anthony Ventura

319.

320. Dale Vulgamore

321. Calvin Walker

322. Larry D. Walker

323. Cecil F. Wallace

324. Joe D. Ward

325. Roy E. Ward

326. Bruce D. Watt

327. James Lloyd Wellman

328.

329.

330. Danny L. White

331. Peggy A. Whiteside

332. Dwayne Elbert Whobrey

333. Ernest L. Williams

334. Gail L. Williams

335. Lester N. Williams

336. Freank L. Wilson

337. Gary D. Winkler

338. Joel B. Witham

339. Keith H. Wohlfert

340. Fred Wojtuniak

341. Jerry J. Wolfe

342. Thomas E. Wood

343. Marvin L. Woods

344. Ervin E. Wooten

345. Donald O. Wright

346.

347. Joe C. Wyatt

348. Thomas E. Wyatt

349. Cedric R. Young

350.

351. Arnold Zimmerman

IN THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT

No. 316-85C

1. BILLY JOE ALLISON

2. RONALD J. ANDERSON

3. SANTA JOANN JONES ARMSTRONG

4. NICHOLAS A. AVIGNONE

5. RAUL AYALA

6. BOBBY A. BARBER

7. PAULA J. BEASLEY

8. MICHAEL BELLONE

9. CHARLES C. BINGHAM

10.

11.

12. MARK J. BRUNER

13. RANDY G. BURGESS

14. NICHOLAS CAIAZZA

15. JAMES C. CAMPBELL

16. STEVEN CANTON

17.

18. CHARVELLA CHRISTMAS

19. GARY W. CHRONISTER

20. FRANCES COBIAN

21. PETER C. COBOURN

22. EDDIE COHEN

23. JOHN C. COLEMAN

24. ROBERT W. COLLIER

25. VICTOR CRUZ

26. DEWAYNE G. CUDDEBACK

27. ALLEN L. CUNNINGHAM

28. ANGEL DAVILLA-RICHARD

30. RONALD W. DAVIS

31. CHARLES DEROSA

32. GREGORY WAYNE DION

33. JOE DIXON

34. MITCHELL DRUCKER

35. WALTER J. DUNCAN

36. BRENDA DURAN

37. ROBIN EAKS

38. BURTON ENGLE, JR.

39. NOVA J. FANN

40. MICHAEL GARONE

41. WALLACE J. GOLDBERG

42. NELSON GORDON, JR.

43. ROBERTA GORDON

44. EDWARD GRIFFIN

45.

46. KATHERINE J. GROVER

47.

48. JIMMY W. HAGGARD

49. TERESA MARIE HARTER

50. LESLIE A. HEILMAN

51. THOMAS GREGORY HENNING

52. HUGH HERBERT

53. RENE HERNANDEZ

54. BEULAH HILL

55. KENT EVERS HILL

56. JACK LYMAN HODGKINSON, JR.

57. DRUSCILLA HOFFMAN

58.

59. CLARENCE HOPKINS

60. CHRISTOPHER HUNDLEY

61.

62. TYRONE JACKSON

63. HERMAN JAMES

64. RICHARD JOHNSON

65. RONALD C. JOHNSON

66. ARTHUR KAYE

67. PHILLIP H. KERR

68. THADDEUS STANLEY KOPEC

69.

70.

71. MICHELLE LEONARD

72. ROGER L. LOYALL

73. STEVEN MARTIN

74. JANET KAY MASON

75. DWAYNE T. MATTHEWS

76. CHARLES P. MCDONOUGH

77. STEPHEN THOMAS MCKINLEY

78.

79. DAVID M. MGVEY

80. MARVIN E. MILLER

81. RICKEY H. MILLER

82. STEVEN WAYNE MILLER

83. DENNA JO MOORE

84. MARY MOORE

85. ERNEST MORALES

86. WILLIAM MORAN

87. DERREL L. MOUNCE

88. EMILO ORTIZ

89. NANCY PARRISH

90. REX EDWARD PARRISH

91. LEROY R. PITTS

92. WILLIAM H. REED

93. ELIAS RIVERA

94. GEORGE RIVERA

95. DENNIS EUGENE ROBERTS

96. STEVEN RUSSELL ROUTSON

97. RAYMOND L. ROWIN

98. GLEN RUIZ-GONZALEZ

99. ARGUS W. RUSSELL, JR.

100. LAVERN L. SCHWANDT

101. MICHAEL D. SEYBERT

102. DENNIS SHIELDS

103. RICHARD A. SIDWELL

104. DEBRA SINSABAUGH

105. RICHARD ALAN SOMMERVILLE

106. BRIAN STEIN

107.

108. CARL D. STITES

109.

110. MANUEL SUAREZ, JR.

111. GLENN E. SUMMONS

112. LEROY JOHN SWIATLY, JR.

113. NATHANIEL TIMBERLAKE

114. JOHN A. VAN CLEEF

115. JOSE VEGA

116. NESTOR VELEZ

117. GARY STEWART WARD

118. JUNE WATLEY

119. PAMELA K. WHEELER

120. JOE H. WHIPPLE

121. RICHARD WILLIAMS

122. STALEY WILLIAMS

123. BRENDA WILSON

124. CRYSTAL G. WILSON

125. DOUGLAS WINGER

126. DANIEL D. WRIGHT

127. MARIA E. WYLIE

IN THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT

No. 526-87C

1. RONALD JACK ABERNETHY

2. RICHARD K. ALAN, SR.

3. LATONIA J. ALLEN

4. CLIFF F. AMAN

5. RICHARD F. ANCTIL

6.

7. MARCEL A. ANDERSON

8. TIMMY D. ANKNEY

9. THOMAS M. ARSENAULT

10. PAUL A. AUBIN

11.

12. GUSTAVO A. BALDOVINO

13. RONNIE L. BANKS

14. CHRISTOPHER R. BARKSDALE

15.

16.

17. MICHAEL D. BARNETT

18. MARY KATHERYN BELT

19. JEAN C. BENEDICT

20. WILLIAM M. BENNETT

21. JOHN L. BICKFORD

22. RONALD EARL BISHOP

23.

24.

25. WENTON L. BLEVINS

26. MICHAEL JAMES BOUTIN

27. JIM L. BOYT

28. CRAIG A. BRADLEY

29. TERRY BRANSCOM

30. ROBERT W. BRANTLEY, JR.

31. SHERRILL LAWRENCE BRETT

32. LISA ANN BRIGHT

33. GORDON J. BRITTON

34. EDWARD L. BROWN

35. GLEN BRUMMETT

36. GARRY D. BURRIS

37. BRIAN M. BYRNE

38.

39. KAREN L. CALDWELL

40.

41. GARETH J. CAMP, JR.

42. JAMES W. CAMPBELL

43.

44. ROY PETE CARNAGEY

45. RICK D. CARRELL

46. DONNY L. CARROLL

47. LARRY L. CARTER

48. DONALD L. CENTERBAR

49.

50.

51. WESLEY D. CLARK

52. JERRY EARL CLEM

53. DONNA LYNN CLEMENTS

54. RALEIGH DUANE CLEMMER

55. JOHN A. CLOUSE, JR.

56. RONALD N. CLOUTIER

57. AL HENRY COATES

58.

59. CHARLES E. COLLINS

60. LAWRENCE D. COLLINS

61.

62. DANA A. CORNEAU

63. JOE L. COSBY

64. RICHARD J. D’ANDREA

65. HARRY F. DARLING

66. TERRY L. DASHNO

67. LOUISE M. DAVIS

68. EDWIN D. DELANEY

69. CHARLES C. DENT

70.

71. PRISCILLA LYNN DICKENSON

72. KELLEY DONALDSON

73. BERT T. DOOLEN

74. JEROME DORN

75. BEVERLY GAIL EATON

76. SHERYL EGGER •

77. DAVID G. EHRICH

78. BILLY EDWARD ELKINS

79.

80. LOU ELLEN ELLIS

81. JAMES M. EMERY

82. LEON J. EMOND

83. MARSHA J. EYMAN

84. DONALD C. FARRELL

85. DANNY HARRIS FELTON

86. DOUGLAS A. FERDO

87. ONFRE FERNANDEZ

88. ROBERT W. FIDELL

89. LUIS MANUEL FIGUEROA

90. DAVID H. FILTER

91. DARYL G. FLANIGAN

92. SHANE D. FORD

93. JOSEPH EDWARD FORTE

94. DONNA L. FORTIN

95. MARVIN H. FORTNER

96. LOLA F. FOSTER

97. VIRGIL HENRY FRANA

98. PETER I. FRARY

99.

100. ERNEST EDWARD FRIC

101. PAUL DAVID GABBERT

102. WILLIAM R. GAEDE

103. ROBERT S. GLENN

104. JOSEPH J. GODFREY

105. FREDERICK WILLIAM GOMAN

106. DALE ANDREW GOODROW

107. RICHARD C. GORDON

108. THOMAS ALBERT GORRON

109.

110. MANFORD L. GRENINGER

111. GARY LEE GRIEWAHN

112.

113. WAYNE S. GROVES

114. RICHARD SCOTT GRUEN

115. LEE ANN GRZIB

116. RICHARD E. GUINEY

117. JANICE I. GUNNELL

118. KELLY L. HAIG

119. GWEN HAMILTON

120.

121. MATTHEW M. HARRINGTON

122. LARRY CAMPBELL HARRIS

123. ROBERT FRANK HARRIS

124. JEFF B. HAYS

125. RONALD B. HEMPHILL

126.

127. ARTURO P. HERNANDEZ

128. FEDERICO P. HERNANDEZ

129.

130. BRENDA F. HILBURN

131.

132. RODNEY DEE HILTON

133.

134. JACK HOGAN

135. LAWRENCE RONALD HOLDER

136. JAMES RAYMOND HOLLENBERG

137.

138. JOHN H. HOWARD

139. RUSSELL W. HUBER

140. HAROLD H. HURLEY

141.

142. ERNEST G. JACKSON

143.

144. JOE W. JARVIS

145. DOUGLAS A. JERDO

146.

147. MARY CHARNELL JOHNSON

148. ALLEN JOHN JONES

149. CECIL A. JONES

150. JUDY G. JONES

151.

152. ROBERT E. JONES

153. WILLIE JONES, JR.

154. WALTER A. JORDAN

155. BRUCE K. KAVANAUGH

156.

157. WENDELL S. KELLY

158. LARRY LEE KERR

159. JIMMIE L. ROLLING

160. JOSEPH P. KOPACH

161.

162. ALF JOHAN LANGE

163. STEPHEN L. LAPIERRE

164. RANDALL BROOKS LATHAM

165. ELDON A. LEBLEU

166. DAVID A. LEDWITH

167.

168. DWIGHT E. LETTERMAN

169. JAMES W. LEWIS

170.

171. LESLIE LITTLE

172.

173. ROSEMARY C." LOGAN

174. EUGENE P. LOWREY

175. JAMES P. LYNCH

176.

177. DANIEL C. MALONEY

178.

179. WILLIAM P. MARSHALL, JR.

180. DOUGLAS MASON

181. HAROLD S. MATTIX, JR.

182. CHARLES Y. MAYHEW

183. BREAYESS McBRIDE

184. BETTY INEZ McCLAIN-MURPHY

185.

186.

187. DONNA K. McCRACKEN

188.

189.

190. GEORGE McPHERSON

191. RICHARD W. MEIER

192. RANDY MELTON

193. LESLY J.A. MICHEL

194. JOHN ROGER MIETELSKI

195. THOMAS ORLANDO MILES

196.

197. ROBERT DAVID MILLER

198. STEPHEN M. MILLS

199. LEVI MITCHELL

200. TEDDY LEE MITCHELL

201. STEPHEN M. MONINGTON

202. SAMUEL B. MONROE

203.

204. THOMAS L. MOORE

205. CANDICE DEBORAH MORGAN

206. LEON WILLIAM MORGAN

207. DARTH J. MUNCY

208. JAMES B. NANCE

209. WILLIAM B. NEWTON

210. CECIL D. NICHOLS

211. DOROTHY J. NORMANN

212. JANIE M. OLIVER

213. BRAD P. PARKER

214.

215. HERBERT R. PATTERSON

216. ARTHUR PEREZ

217.

218. GERHARDT P. PFEIFER

219. CHARLES ALLEN PHERIGO

220. MICHAEL WM. PHILLIPS

221. ROBERT A. PODGORSKI

222. LAWRENCE WAYNE POHLPETER

223. LEO P. POIRIER

224. HARRY D. POWELL

225. ROY D. PRESLEY

226. K.P. PRICE

227. DAVID M. PUENTE

228.

229. THOMAS LEE QUICK

230.

231. MELODY LYNNE RAMSEY

232. DANNY RAY REAGAN

233. CARLOS BERTON REES

234. RICHARD D. REES

235.

236.

237.

238.

239. ELIZABETH ARDITH ROEKERJARVIS

240.

241. GILBERT PATTISON ROSE

242. STEPHANY E. SCHULL

243. GARY L. SCOTT

244. RONALD B. SEARS

245.

246. ARNOLD GEAN SEIFERT

247.

248.

249. PATRICIA JOANN SHARP

250. ALDEN SIMMONS

251. ALPHONSO SIMMONS

252. RALPH O. SLATON

253.

254. DAVID P. SNYDER

255.

256. CALVIN SPENCE

257. DONNA MARIE SPONHOLTZ

258. DANIEL L. STALLINGS

259. ROBERT LEE STARCHER

260. GEORGETTA J. STARKE

261. DENNIS W. STEVENS

262. RAYMOND J. STEVENS

263. KEITH D. STEWART

264. WILLIAM LEE STRICKLAND

265. NANCY JOANNE STUCKEY

266. SHERIDAN C. SWINYER

267. JULIE SZEMPLENSKI

268. DANIEL VICTOR TAUB

269. WILLIAM L. TAYLOR

270.

271.

272. THERESA ANN TOWNE

273. DONALD R. TUCKER

274. ARZO DEAN TUREAUD

275. TERRI JANE TUREAUD

276. CAROLYN J. TURNER

277. KATHLEEN MARIE TURNER

278. LEROY DEAN TYE

279. CLYDE B. VANN

280. JOHN BROOKSBANK VAN OR-MAN

281. BRENDA JOYCE VAUGHN

282. WILLIAM D. VAWTER

283. MARTIN A. VESEL

284. HENRY BERNARD WALKER

285. WILLIAM JUDE WALLACE

286. STEPHEN G. WALLS

287.

288. SANDRIA V. WASHINGTON

289. GERALD CARL WEBINGER, JR.

290. ARMEN A. WEDELL

291. CHARLES R. WHALEN

292.

293. DARLENE KAY WHEELER

294. DAVID WHICKER

295.

296. DONALD H. WHITECOTTON

297. JOHN J. WIECHART

298. DALE GARY WILKENING

299. DONNIE J. WILKS

300.

301. PAUL C. WOODALL

302.

303.

304. TROY N. YOUNGBLOOD

305. COLLEEN M. ZACKERY

306. ROBERT ZAJIC

307. CLARA M. ZIMMERMAN 
      
      . The case originated on August 8, 1983, in a complaint filed by 329 plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as Kelley v. United States, Civ. A. No. 83-2294 (D.D.C.). Since that court lacked jurisdiction, the case was transferred to this Court on May 7, 1984. On June 26, 1984, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this Court, so that the Kelley case was now Adkins v. United States, No. 268-84C. Shortly after, on August 3, 1984, a related case, Adams v. United States, No. 400-84C, was filed and consolidated with Adkins. These two cases were then consolidated with Allison v. United States, No. 316-85C, which was filed by 143 new plaintiffs on May 28, 1985. These cases were in turn consolidated with Abernethy v. United States, No. 526-87C, filed by 307 plaintiffs on August 25, 1987.
      The complaints were amended periodically to reflect the Court’s rulings as to which plaintiffs should remain in the suits. Those plaintiffs who failed to timely submit completed questionnaires were dismissed. Accordingly, on September 11, 1987, amended complaints were filed on behalf of 224 plaintiffs in Albright (formerly Adkins) and 353 plaintiffs in Adams. On April 10, 1989, fourth amended complaints were filed on behalf of 224 plaintiffs in Albright, 354 plaintiffs in Adams, and 127 plaintiffs in Allison.