Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-03-05245/USCOURTS-caDC-03-05245-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify

the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made

before the bound volumes go to press.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 18, 2004 Decided December 3, 2004

No. 03-5245

YVONNE BROWN,

APPELLANT

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 02cv00300)

Reuben Collins argued the cause and filed the brief for

appellant.

Alan Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for

appellees. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Wainstein, U.S. Attorney, and Michael J. Ryan, Assistant U.S.

Attorney. R. Craig Lawrence and Brian J. Sonfield, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, entered appearances.

 Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.

The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out

of time.

USCA Case #03-5245 Document #863289 Filed: 12/03/2004 Page 1 of 2
2

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and TATEL,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: The facts of this case are recounted in Brown

v. United States, 271 F. Supp. 2d 225, 226–28 (D.D.C. 2003),

and need not be repeated here.

On appeal Brown challenges only the district court’s dismissal of Counts I and III of her amended complaint, which

counts state claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,

and for breach of contract, respectively. Brown alleges the

United States Department of Agriculture breached the terms

of its settlement agreement with her and that its breach

entitles her both to damages in excess of $10,000 and to the

reinstatement of her administrative complaint alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII.

The Government points out, and Brown now agrees with

respect to Count III, this case should have been brought in

the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act

because she advances a contract claim against the United

States in excess of $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). We

agree with the Government as to both counts.

In order for Brown either to pursue remedies for breach of

contract or to seek relief under Title VII, she must first prove

the Department breached the settlement agreement. And

because this contract question arises in a suit against the

United States for more than $10,000 in damages, jurisdiction

to decide whether the Department breached the settlement

agreement lies exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims.

See Shaffer v. Veneman, 325 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2003);

Massie v. United States, 166 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Therefore, Counts I and III of Brown’s amended complaint

should have been dismissed without rather than with prejudice. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the district

court for the entry of an appropriate order.

So ordered.

USCA Case #03-5245 Document #863289 Filed: 12/03/2004 Page 2 of 2