Legal Opinion: GMP-0026

Index: 6.440

Subject: Interest on Backpay

November 27, 1991

MEMORANDUM FOR: Elmer Lee, Acting Director

Office of Personnel and Training, AP

FROM: Sam E. Hutchinson, Assistant General Counsel for

Personnel and Ethics Law, GPL

SUBJECT: Interest on Backpay

Laverne Dixon of your office requested a legal opinion on

the appropriateness of paying interest on the payment of monies

owed as the result of administrative error.

We understand the facts to be as follows:

A Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging unlawful

discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in

the denial of a promotion. The Department and complainant

entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Department

promised to promote complainant retroactively and pay backpay to

the effective date of promotion. The settlement agreement did

not address the payment of interest. Interest was not paid on

the initial amount paid under the settlement agreement and is not

the subject of this memorandum. The Department failed to pay the

entire amount of backpay due within the time period set forth in

the settlement agreement. Fifteen months later, the remaining

amount of back pay (approximately \$1,000) was paid to the

employee. The delay in payment of this portion of the back pay

award was occasioned by administrative error.

You have requested our opinion as to whether the Department

owes interest on that portion of the back pay award that was paid

fifteen months after the agreed upon date for payment.

It is well established that there is no authority for the

assessment of interest against the United States except where

sovereign immunity has been waived by statutory provision. U.S.

v Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48 (1951). Title VII, the basis of the

complainant\'s discrimination complaint, does not waive sovereign

immunity and therefore does not itself allow for the assessment

of interest against the federal government. Library of Congress

v\. Shaw, 47 U.S. 310 (1986). However, the Supreme Court has held

that the express waiver of sovereign immunity from the payment of

prejudgment interest may be supplied by a separate statute.

Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549 (1988). In consolidated cases,

2

the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held in Brown

v\. Secretary of the Army, and Mitchell v. Secretary of Commerce,

918 F.2d 214 (D.C.Cir 1990), that the Back Pay Act supplies the

requisite waiver of sovereign immunity absent in Title VII to

entitle a successful federal employee in a Title VII action to

prejudgment interest on an award of back pay. Such interest is

available where the plaintiff is affected by an unjustified or

unwarranted personnel action which has resulted in the withdrawal

or reduction of all or part of her pay, allowances or

differentials as required by the Back Pay Act (5 U.S.C.

5596(b)(2)). In Brown and Mitchell, however, the court found

that an award based on a wrongful failure to promote, which does

not result in the withholding of pay owing the employee, should

not include interest under the Back Pay Act. In this regard the

court distinguished between failure to promote competitively,

which is discretionary with the agency, and failure to promote

non-competitively, such as promotions mandated by the provisions

of a collective bargaining agreement under circumstances where

specific criteria are met, i.e. career ladder promotions, or by

agency regulation.

We do not have specific information relating to the category

of promotion that was denied in the present situation. However,

we do not believe that the denial of the promotion, whether it be

competitive or non-competitive, is the issue that should be

addressed at this juncture. It is our view that the settlement

agreement created an independent, enforceable obligation on the

Department to pay the agreed upon amount within a specified time

period regardless of the type of promotion that was the subject

of the original complaint. The focus should be on the subsequent

administrative error which resulted in the withholding of pay

previously determined (by virtue of the settlement agreement) to

be owing the employee.

The issue then, is whether an administrative error that

results in the withholding of monies due an employee is an

unjustified or unwarranted personnel action resulting in the

withdrawal or reduction of the employees pay, allowances or

differentials for which interest may be assessed against the

Department under the provisions of the Backpay Act.

We believe that the failure to implement a pay action

because of administrative error warrants payment of interest

under the Back Pay Act. OPM\'s final rule on the interest

provision of the Back Pay Act notes that the term \"unjustified or

unwarranted personnel action\" includes pay actions, alone or in

combination with personnel actions and also addresses the

applicability of interest to the withholding of pay due to

administrative error.\" \...for example, if an agency, through

administrative error, fails to implement a pay action\...the

employee is made whole by issuing the appropriate payment of back

3

pay and interest\....\" (Comments on Entitlement to Interest,

Federal Register Vol. 53, No.220 November 15, 1988)

We conclude that interest is due on that portion of the

settlement award that was wrongfully withheld for a period of

fifteen months.