2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-20-2009 

# Es t at e of Alb e r t P

. S chult z, B v

. J ohn P ott e r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4603

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Es t at e of Albe r t P

. S chultz, B v

. J o hn P ott e r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 414. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/414NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4603 ESTATE OF ALB ERT P. SCHU LTZ, B onni e Schul t z, R epr es ent at i ve A ppel l ant

v. J OH N E. POTTER, POSTM ASTER G ENER AL, UNI TE D ST ATE S P OST AL S ERVI CE

O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 2- 05- cv- 001169) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

on Sept ember9, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge and R E N D E L L and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed : O ct ober20, 2009)

OPI NI ON OF TH E CO UR T2

A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. T h e E stat e o f A lbert P . S ch u lt z (“ S ch u lt z” ) ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s um m aryj udgm entdet erm i nat i on of Schul t z’ s act i on t o enfor ce a back- payor derof the U . S. M er i tSy s t ems Pr ot ect i on B oar d ( “M SPB ”) . A ft er17 y ear s of pr otr act ed j udi ci al and a d m in is tr a tiv e litig a tio n , th e p a rt ie s h a v e s e ttle d th e m e ri ts o f th e u n d e rl y in g m a tte r, a d isa b ili tyd isc rim in a tio n c laim b yth e late M r. S c h u ltz a g a in st th e U .S . P o sta l S e rv ice , h is form erempl oy er . I n t hi s appea l , Schul t z cha l l enges the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s comput at i on of the Pos t al Ser vi ce’ s back- pay( i ncl udi ng benef i t s ) and i nt er es tobl i gat i ons underthe B ack PayA ct , 5 U . S. C . § 5596, and ur ges thatthe C our terr ed i n r efus i ng t o cons i der ar gum ent s r ai s ed af

t erSchul t z’ s or i gi nal m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . W e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a di d noterri n cal cul at i ng S c h u ltz’s b a c k p a ya w a rd a n d a p p lied th e c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd s in m a k in g its c a lcu latio n s. W e d o d e ter m in e th a t th e C o u rt e rre d in o n e a sp e c t o f its in ter e st c a lcu latio n : w i th respectt o the Po st al S ervi ce’s A pri l 14 , 20 08 back -paypay m ent, st atutoryi nter est s houl d have a ccrued unt i l “a da t e notm or e than 30 day s befor e” the A pr i l 14, 2008 paym ent . 5 U . S. C . § 5596( b) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . W e furt herconcl ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n choos i ng nott o ent ert ai n ar gum ent s r ai s ed bySchul t z more than a y e a r a f ter th e C o u rt ru led o n th e p a rties ’ c ro ss -m o tio n s f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. W e w ill aff i r m i n partand r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforthe l i m i t ed purpos e of c al cul at i ngThe D i s t r i c tCour tha d j ur i s di c t i on ov e rSc hu l t z ’ s a c t i on t o e nf or c e the M SPB 1 deci s i on pur s uantt o 5 U . S. C . § 7703( b) ( 2) . T hi s C our tdi s m i s s ed an e ar l i erappea l for l ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. See Est at e of Schul t z v. Pot t er , 285 Fed. A ppx. 886 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt e n ter e d f in a l ju d g m e n t o n S e p tem b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 . S c h u ltz t i m el yfi l ed a mot i on t o al t ert he j udgm entpur s uantt o R ul e 59( e) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed i n par tand deni ed i n par ton O ct ober 30, 2008. Schul t z t i m el yappea l ed on N ovember17, 2008. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, us i ng the s ame st andar d t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have a ppl i ed. U ni on Pac. R . R . C o. v. G r eentr ee T ran sp . T ruc k ing C o . , 2 9 3 F . 3 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A cti o n s b ef o re the M S P B are gener al l ycl as s i fi ed as ei t her“pur e” or“mi xed. ” “A pur e ca s e i s w hen the empl oy ee al l eges harm fr om an i m pr opernon- di s cr i m i nat oryper s onnel deci s i on. A m i xed ca s e, on the o ther h an d , is w h en the e m p loy ee all eg es su ch a p erso n n el de cisi o n resu lt ed in p art fro m p roh ibit ed d iscri m ination . ” K ea n v . S ton e, 96 6 F . 2 d 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). B eca us e Schul t z al l eged both an i m pr operper s onnel act i on and di s cr i m i nat orydi s char ge, th is w a s a m ix e d c a s e . I n m i xed ca s es , the M SPB ’ s deci s i on conce r ni ng the d isc rim in a tio n iss u e is re v iew e d d e n o v o , w h e re a s its d e c isio n c o n c e rn in g th e c iv il s ervi ce i s s ue i s r evi ew ed undera def er ent i al s t andar d. See 5 U . S. C . § 7703( c) . W e agr ee w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t b e c a u se th is c a se ste m s f ro m S c h u ltz’s d isc rim in a tio n c laim , it is subject t o d e n o v o rev iew , alth o u g h o u r ruli n g w o u ld b e the sam e e v en u n d er a defe rent i al revi ew . W e ordi nari l yrevi ew a dis t ri ctcou rt ’s back -paycal culat i on s for abuse o f d iscreti o n . D u rha m L ife In s. C o v . E v an s, 1 6 6 F . 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 5 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). B u t w h ere the ques t i on i s w hethert he di s t r i ctcour tappl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar d i n i t s back- pay cal cul at i ons , ourr evi ew i s pl enary . C f. K ean, 966 F. 2d at121. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ct cou rt ’s decis i on no tt o en t ert ai n n ew argum ents no tadeq uatel yrai sed i n the part i es’ su m m aryjud g m en t pap ers f o r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . K iew itE . C o . , Inc . v . L & R C o n str . C o . , 4 4 F . 3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). 3 o u tsta n d in g in ter e st re latin g to th e A p ril 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 p a ym e n t. 1 I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s , pr ocedur al hi s t oryand cont ent i ons pr es ent ed, w e truncat e ourdi s cus s i on of thi s cas e’ s over l ong h is to ry.S chu l t z al l eged dis cri m i nati on based o n b oth phy si cal and m ental dis abil i t i es. 2 T he cl ai m s r el at ed t o m ent al di s abi l i t i es w er e r ej ect ed bythe M SPB and EE O C . See Schul t z I I , 78 M . S. P. R . at164- 166. 4 A lb e rt S c h u ltz, a p o sta l ca rrie r h ire d in 1 9 8 7 , su f f e re d f ro m p h y sic a l d isa b ili ties in hi s w r i s t s and hands as a cons equenc e of a w or k- r el at ed i nj ury . See Schul t z v. U . S. Post al Ser v. ( Schul t z I I ) , 78 M . S. P. R . 159, 161 ( 1998) . H e vol unt ar i l yt ook l eave - w i t hout - pay s t atus on N ovember6, 1990. H e al s o s oughtw age- r epl ace m entbenef i t s underthe Feder al E m pl oy ees ’ C om pens at i on A ct( “FE C A ”) , 5 U . S. C . § 8101 ets eq. , w hi ch w er e gr ant ed b ythe D ep artm en t of

L ab o r’s O ff

ice o f W o rke rs’ C o m p en sati o n P rog ram s (“O W C P ”). O n D ece m ber4, 1991, Schul t z as ked t o r eturn t o w or k and r eques t ed acc om m odat i ons forhi s i nj ur ed hands and w r i s t s . O n February24, 1992, the Pos t al S ervi ce i nfo rm ed h i m t hat i tw as consi deri ng his requestt o return t o w ork, bu this request w as notgr ant ed. O n N ovember24, 1992, the Pos t al Ser vi ce di s char ged Schul t z forfai l i ng t o m eetatt endanc e r equi r ement s . See Schul t z v. U . S. Post al Ser v. ( Schul t z I ) , 70 M . S. P. R . 633, 635 ( 1996) . Schul t z s oughtadmi ni s t r at i ve r el i ef f r om the M SPB and the E E O C , alle g in g th a t th e P o sta l S e rv ice ’s a c tio n s c o n stitu ted u n law f u l d isa b ili ty di s cr i m i nat i on. 2 T he M SPB det erm i ned thatSchul t z’ s abs ence fr om w or k beca m e a c ons t ruct i ve s us pens i on i n vi ol at i on of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct , 29 U . S. C . § 791, on February24, 1992, w hen the Pos t al Ser vi ce f ai l ed t o acc om m odat e hi s phy s i cal di s abi l i t y . See Schul t z I I , 78 M . S. P. R . at164. T he M SPB al s o det erm i ned thatSchul t z’ s N ovember24, 1992 r emoval5

vi ol at ed the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctand or der ed the Pos t al Ser vi ce t o “ca ncel [hi s ] r emoval and [r ei ns t at e] hi m eff

ect i ve N ovember24, 1992, ” w i t h t he “appr opr i at e amount ” of ba ck p a y , inte re st a n d b e n e f

its. S e e S c h u ltz I, 7 0 M .S .P .R . at 6 4 2 . S c h u ltz w a s re in sta ted in Sept ember1995, al t hough he neve rr eturned t o w or k. H e t ook di s abi l i t yr et i r ementfr om the Pos t al Ser vi ce i n N ovember1997, butl at erexer ci s ed hi s r i ghtt o cont i nue r ece i vi ng F E C A / O W C P b e n e f

i t s b e yo n d t h a td a t e . T h e P o s t a l S e r v i c e o f f e r e d h i m a “ l i m i t e d d u ty” pos i t i on on M ar ch 11, 1998, w hi ch he de cl i ned. Schul t z di ed i n O ct ober2000. T he i ns t antcas e ar os e fr om a pet i t i on fi l ed bythe Schul t z Est at e forenfor cement of the M SPB or der s di r ect i ng back pa ym entforSchul t z’ s cons t ruct i ve s us pens i on and r emoval per i ods . O n M ay12, 2004, w hi l e the pet i t i on forenfor cementw as pendi ng befor e the M SPB , t he part i es ent er ed i nt o a s ett l ementagr eementr es ol vi ng “al l i s s ues and c laim s a g a in st th e a g e n c yre late d to A lb e rt S c h u ltz’s e m p lo ym e n t,” w ith tw o e x c e p tio n s: ( 1) t he pr operamount of bac k paydue forthe per i od aft erN ovember23, 1992 and ( 2) t he t i m el i nes s of Schul t z’ s enfor cementact i on. ( A pp. 166- 167. ) O n Sept ember13, 2004, an A dm i ni s tr at i ve J udge of the M SPB concl uded thatSchul t z’ s enfor cementact i on w as unt i m el y . T he ful l B oar d adopt ed thatdeci s i on as i t s fi nal or deron J ul y22, 2005. T he Schul t z Est at e fi l ed thi s s ui ti n t he D i s t r i ctC our ton A ugus t22, 2005, and the Pos t al Ser vi ce s ubs equent l yabandone d i t s t i m el i nes s defe ns e. T he s ol e di s put e i n t he D i s t r i ct C our tconce r ned the pr operamount of bac k pay( i ncl udi ng benef i t s ) and i nt er es tdue Schul t z fort he per i od aft erhi s r emoval on N ovember24, 1992.6 II. A fter d isco v ery , S ch u lt z m o v ed fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, ask ing the D istri ct C o u rt t o r e s o l v e t h r e e q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g th e b a c k - p a yc l a i m: 1. I s t he val ue of f

r i nge bene fi t s pay abl e, and i f s o, w hati s the monet aryval ue of fr i nge bene fi t s pay abl e? 2. O n w hatdat e do bac k payand bene fi t s t erm i nat e? 3. I f and w hen s houl d w or ker s ’ compensa t i on benef i t s offs etback pa yi n the in ter e st c o m p u tatio n u n d e r th e B a c k P a yA c t? T h e P o s ta l S e rv ic e c ro s s -m o v e d f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n e a c h p o in t. ( A p p . 4 .) O n t he i s s ue of f

r i nge bene fi t s , the D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatthe ca l cul at i on of fr i nge benef i t s m us tbe s peci fi c t o t he empl oy ee a nd cannotbe bas ed on gene r al i zed f i gur es . T he C o u rt a lso h e ld th a t th e P o sta l S e rv ice w a s re q u ire d to in c lu d e h e a lth b e n e f its in its cal cul at i on of Schul t z’ s back pa y , butw as notr equi r ed t o i ncl ude the val ue of contr i but i ons t o Schul t z’ s T hr i ftSavi ngs Pl an ( “TS P”) , as he neve rpart i ci pat ed i n t he T SP. O n the i s s ue of t erm i nat i on of bac k pay , the C our thel d t hatthe t erm i nat i on dat e for the ca l cul at i on of bac k payw as J une 12, 1996, the dat e thatthe M SPB or der ed corr ect i ve act i on. O n t he i s s ue of of fs et s , t he C our thel d t hatthe Pos t al Ser vi ce w as ent i t l ed t o offs et back pa ybyt he amountof FE C A / O W C P benefi t s r ece i ved bySchul t z, and that F E C A /O W P C b en ef

it s are to b e o ff

set p ri o r t o ca lculati n g b ac k -pa yinterest. T h e C o u rt ’s or derw as dat ed A pr i l 12, 2007 and w as fi l ed the nextday . O n A pr i l 14, 2008, the Pos t al S ervi ce paid S chu l t z $1 03 , 76 9. 81 i n acco rdance w i t h thi s order , cal culat i ng i nter estA l t hough t he D i s t r i ctC our ti ndi cat ed i t s pr evi ous or derw as dat ed A pr i l 27, 2007, 3 it a p p e a rs th e a c tu a l d a te o f th a t o rd e r w a s A p ri l 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 . (A p p . 1 0 9 .)

7 thro u g h A p ri l 12 , 2 0 0 7 . (A p p . 1 . 0 9 -1.10 ; A p p . 1 0 -11 ; A p p ell an t’ s B r. 2 1 ; A p p ell ee ’s B r. 5 6 .) A ta hea r i ng on M ay2, 2007, the D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, w i t houtoppos i t i on, thatno out s t andi ng i s s ues r emai ned and or der ed thatthe ca s e “be m arked cl os ed. ” ( A pp. 2 .) S c h u ltz f

iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l o n Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 . O ra l ar g u m e n t w a s h e a rd in th is C our t , buton J ul y22, 2008, w e di s m i s s ed the ca s e forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on and r emanded t o the D i s tr i ctC our tforfi nal di s pos i t i on. See Est at e of Schul t z v. Pot t er , 285 Fed. A ppx. 886 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( fi ndi ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad i s s ued an “ admi ni s t r at i ve cl os e- out o rd e r” th a t la c k e d f

in a lity). O n r emand, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts peci fi ed thatthe t ot al val ue of ba ck paydue S chu l t z w as $99 , 76 0. 65 ($47,246.69 i n b ack p ayand al l ow ances p l us $5 2, 31 5. 73 i nter est p lu s $ 1 9 8 .2 3 re tirem e n t d e d u c tio n ) a n d th a t th e su m -c e rta in v a lu e f o r h e a lth c a re b e n e f

its w as $32 , 19 6. 51 (fort he p eri od of N ov em ber 24, 1992 t o N ov em ber 1, 19 95 , plus i nter est thr ough the dat e of the pr evi ous D i s t r i ctC our tor der ) . A ccor di ngl y , the C our thel d t hat 3 the t ot al val ue of ba ck pay , benef i t s and i nt er es tow ed t o Schul t z t ot al ed $131, 957. 16, and thatbeca us e the Pos t al Ser vi ce ha d al r eadypai d Schul t z $103, 769. 81, the out s t andi ng b a la n c e w a s $ 2 8 ,1 8 7 .3 5 . O n re m a n d , S c h u ltz a ls o f ile d a “ M o tio n f

o r C la ri f ic a tio n ,” w hi ch pr es ent ed ar gum ent s and evi dence notr efl ect ed i n Schul t z’ s or i gi nal m ot i on for8

su m m a ryju d g m e n t o r re p ly , an d re q u e ste d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e r a ll arg u m e n ts r ai s ed i n i t s br i efs befor e thi s C our t . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed thes e ar gum ent s as u n tim e ly an d e n te re d f

in a l ju d g m e n t o n S e p te m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 . Schul t z t i m el yfi l ed a mot i on t o al t erthe j udgm ent , cont endi ng that( 1) the D i s tr i ct C o u rth ad o v erloo k ed ev iden ce an d arg u m en ts i n S ch u lt z’s o ri g inal m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t, (2 ) th e p a rties h a d n o t ag re e d th a t n o iss u e s w e re o u tsta n d in g a n d (3 ) S c h u ltz w as ent i t l ed t o benef

i t s fort he per i od of hi s cons t ruct i ve s us pens i on fr om February24, 1992 t o N ovember23, 1992. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed thes e cont ent i ons , butamended i t s or dert o di r ectt hat“the endi ng dat e forcomput at i on of i nt er es tforpaym entnoty et m ade i s notm or e than 30 day s befor e the dat e on w hi ch paym enti s m ade. ” ( A pp. 1. 04 ( ci t i ng 5 U . S. C . § 5596( b) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) ) . ) T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued i t s rul i ng on O ct ober30, 2008. Schul t z t i m el yappea l ed on N ovember17, 2008. III . S c h u ltz c o n te n d s th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e rr e d in c o n s tru in g 5 U .S .C . § 5 5 9 6 (b)(2 )(B )(i ) t o ap p lyo n lyto “p ay m en t no t y et m ad e,” an d co n tend s tha t th e C o u rt ’s cons truct i on pr ematur el yended the i nt er es tacc rual per i od on t he amountpai d bythe P o stal S erv ice o n A p ri l 14 , 2 0 0 8 . S ch u lt z a rgu es th at un d er 5 U . S . C . § 5 5 9 6 (b)(2 )(B )(i ), i nt er es ton t hi s amount s houl d have a ccrued unt i l a dat e “notm or e than 30 day s befor e the dat e on w hi ch paym ent[w as ] m ade. ” H e ur ges thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n perm i t t i ng i nt er es ton t he A pr i l 14, 2008 paym entt o acc rue onl ythr ough A pr i l 12, 2007, the dat e theW e w o u ld h a v e p re f e rre d if in its b rie f

A p p e llan t (1 ) h a d a ss e rte d its o b jec tio n s to 4 the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s i nt er es tcal cul at i on t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , ( 2) had ca l cul at ed the a m o u n t o f

a d d iti o n a l in ter e st it n o w c laim s is d u e a n d sh a re d th a t in f o rm a tio n w ith th is C our tand ( 3) ci t ed s om e author i t yt o s uppor ti t s cur s ory , thr ee- par agr aph ar gum enton th i s i s s u e . Bu tb e c a u s e we r e ma n d t o th e Di s t r i c tCo u r to n l yo n o n e n a r r o w i s s u e , we d e lib e ra te ly o v e rl o o k th e d e re lic tio n s o f th e A p p e lla n t in its b ri e f. 9 D is tr ic t C o u rt in itia lly o rd e re d th a t a m o u n t to b e p a id . W e agr ee. T he B ack PayA ctdi r ect s thati nt er es ton back pa ydue underthe A ct “s hal l be comput ed fort he per i od begi nni ng on t he ef fec t i ve dat e of the w i t hdr aw al or r educt i on i nvol ved and endi ng on a dat e not m or e than 30 days bef

or e the dat e on w hi ch paym ent is m ade .” 5 U .S .C . § 5 5 9 6 (b )( 2 )( B )( i) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ); s e e a ls o 5 C .F .R . § 5 5 0 . 8 0 6 (b), ( f). T h e D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yam en d ed it s o rde r t o ref lect th is st atuto ry d i r e c t i v e wi t h r e g a r d t o b a c k - p a ya mo u n t s n o ty e tp a i d a n d s h o u l d h a v e d o n e th e s a me w i th r egar d t o t he amountpai d t o Schul t z on A pr i l 14, 2008. T hough thi s cas e has al r eady overw or ked the j udi ci ary , w e r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our ton one i s s ue: the comput at i on of int eres tst i l l ow i ng on t he b ack-payam ou nt pai d o n A pri l 14 , 20 08 , w hich accrued, as a m at t erof l aw , “fr om t he dat e of the w i t hdr aw al orr educt i on i nvol ved and e ndi ng on a d a t e n o tm o r e t h a n 3 0 d a y s b e f o r e ” A p r i l 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 . 5 U . S . C . § 5 5 9 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) . We 4 expec tt he ac t i ve part i es on r emand t o ext end the maxi m um good fai t h eff or tt o r eac h agr eementon t hi s s t r ai ght forw ar d m athemat i cal cal cul at i on w i t houtaddi ng addi t i onal b u rd e n s o n th e D istric t C o u rt. I V.10

Schul t z nextcont ends t hatFE C A / O W PC w age- r epl ace m entpaym ent s s houl d have been of fs etfr om t he ca l cul at i on after i nt er es tw as cal cul at ed forout s t andi ng back pa y r athert han bef

or e i nt er es tw as cal cul at ed. Forthe bac k- payper i od betw een N ovember24, 1992 and J une 12, 1996, Schul t z r ece i ved $77, 390. 89 i n FE C A / O W PC paym ent s fr om th e P o sta l S e rv ice . S c h u ltz c o n ten d s th a t th e B a c k P a yA c t re q u ire s th a t in ter e st b e p a id on t hi s $77, 390. 89 amount i n addi t i on t o i nt er es ton t he di ffe r ence betw een thatamount and w hathe w oul d have e arned had he notbeen t erm i nat ed. W e di s agr ee. T he B ack PayA ctendea vor s “t o m ake w or ker s w hol e w ho [have ] s uffe r ed on acc ountof unfa i rl aborpr act i ces . ” M art i n v. D ep’ tof A i rFor ce, 184 F. 3d 1366, 1372 (F e d . C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). T o th a t en d , the A c t aw a rd s b a c k p a ya n d in ter e st w h e n “ a n a p p ro p ria te author i ty ” di r ect s t he corr ect i on of an unj us t i fi ed per s onnel act i on thatdepr i ved the empl oy ee of

pay . 5 C . F. R . §§ 550. 805- 550. 806. A back- payaw ar d r es t or es t o t he empl oy ee “ an amountequal t o al l oranypartof the pay , al l ow ance s , ordi ffe r ent i al s ” he ors he w oul d have r ece i ved i f the unj us t i fi ed ac t i on had notoccurr ed, offs etbyany( 1)

“ o u tsid e e a rn in g s u n d e rta k e n to re p lac e th e e m p lo ym e n t” a n d (2 ) “ e rro n e o u s p a ym e n ts r ece i ved fr om t he governm entas a r es ul tof the unj us t i fi ed orunw arr ant ed per s onnel act i on. ” I d. § 550. 805( e) ( 1) - ( 2) ; s ee 5 U . S. C . § 5596( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) . I nt er es ton s uch an aw ar d acc rues fr om “the dat e ordat es ( us ual l yone orm or e paydat es ) on w hi ch the empl oy ee w oul d have r ece i ved the pay , al l ow ance s , and di ffe r ent i al s i f the unj us t i fi ed or unw arr ant ed per s onnel act i on had notoccurr ed. ” 5 C . F. R . § 550. 806( a) ( 1)

. S i g n i f i c a n t l y,A l t hough admi ni s t er ed byt he D epartm entof Labor , ther e i s no col l at er al paym ent 5 so u rc e u n d e r F E C A a n d th e P o sta l S e rv ice w a s th e so le s o u rc e o f th e a c tu a l p a ym e n ts m a d e . 11 “ o u tsid e e a rn in g s” a re d e d u c ted f ro m g ro ss b a c k p a yb e f o re in ter e st is c a lcu late d , w h ile

“ e rr o n e o u s p a ym e n ts ” a re d e d u c te d a f te r t h e c a lc u la tio n o f

in te re s t. S e e id . § 5 5 0 .8 0 6 (c ). Schul t z s eeks t o m axi m i ze i nt er es ton hi s back- payaw ar d bychar act er i zi ng FE C A / O W PC benef

i t s as “err oneous paym ent s . ” W e r ej ectthi s char act er i zat i on. FE C A / O W PC w age- r epl ace m entpaym ent s , a form of w or ker s ’ compensa t i on, ar i s e fr om a s epar at e s t atut or ys cheme – FE C A – and do notfal l i nt o ei t herthe “out s i de ea r ni ngs ” or “err oneous paym ent s ” ca t egor i es of the B ack PayA ct . C ont r aryt o Schul t z’ s cont ent i on, 5 the FE C A / O W PC paym ent s w er e notr ece i ved bySchul t z “a s a r es ul tof the unj us t i fi ed or u n w a rr a n t e d p e r s o n n e l a c t i o n , ” b u ta s c o m p e n s a t i o n f o rh i s w o r k - r e l a t e d i n

j u r y. E m ploy ees m ayrecover und er bot h F E C A and the R ehab i l i t at i on A ct , w hich add res s di ffe r enti nj ur i es : w or k- r el at ed i nj ur i es r es ul t i ng i n di m i ni s hed w or ki ng capa ci t yand di s cr i m i nat or yact i ons byempl oy er s , r es pect i vel y . See M i l l erv. B ol ger , 802 F. 2d 660, 6 6 3 , 6 6 5 -6 6 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). A c c o rd in g ly , S c h u ltz’s re c e ip t o f F E C A /O W P C b e n e f

its is har dl y“err oneous . ” T he Pos t al Ser vi ce c ont ends t hatFE C A / O W C P benefi t s fal l w i t hi n t he def i ni t i on of “pa y , al l ow ance s , and di ffe r ent i al s ” Schul t z had a l r eadyr ece i ved, and henc e s houl d be deduct ed bef

or e comput i ng i nt er es t . W e agr ee. I n as s es s i ng back pa ydue underthe B ack PayA ct , the fi r s ts t ep i s t o comput e the “pa y , al l ow ance s , and di ffe r ent i al s ” of w hi ch theTo t h e e x t e n tt h a tS c h u l t z a r g u e s th a th e wa s d e p r i v e d o f th e t i me v a l u e o f

s o me 6 of hi s FE C A / O W C P benefi t s beca us e of de l ay ed r ece i ptof ce r t ai n paym ent s , the t i m i ng of thes e paym ent s i s entrus t ed s ol el yt o t he D epart m entof Labor , 5 U . S. C . § 8128( a) , and i s nots ubj ectt o r evi ew byt hi s C our t . See 5 U . S. C . § 8128( b) ; M cD ougal - Saddl erv. H erm an , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 1 -21 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 12 e m p lo y e e w a s d e p ri v e d d u e to th e u n w a rr a n te d p e rs o n n e l a c tio n . 5 U .S .C . § 5596( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) . T he i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons s t at e that“[p] ay , al l ow ance s , and di ffe r ent i al s m eans pay , l eave , and otherm onet aryempl oym entbenef i t s t o w hi ch an empl oy ee i s ent i t l ed bys t atut e orr egul at i on and w hi ch ar e pay abl e bythe empl oy i ng agenc yt o an empl oy ee dur i ng per i ods of Feder al empl oym ent . ” 5 C . F. R . § 550. 803. FE C A / O W C P w age- r epl ace m entpaym ent s ar e a monet aryempl oym entbenef i t , t o w hi ch a n i n j u r e d f e d e r a l e m p l o ye e i s e n t i t l e d b y s t a tu t e , p a ya b l e b y th e e m p l o yi n g a g e n c y. A ccor di ngl y , w e det erm i ne thatFE C A / O W C P benefi t s qual i fyas “pay , al l ow ance s , and d if f e re n tia ls ” u n d e r t h e B a c k P a yA c t. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyc o m p u ted in ter e st af t erdeduct i ng t he $77, 390. 89 i n FE C A / O W C P benefi t s fr om Schul t z’ s gr os s back- payaw ar d. I tw oul d be a w i ndfal l t o Schul t z i f the Pos t al Ser vi ce w er e r equi r ed t o payi nt er es ton m oni es i thad al r eadypai d hi m . I ndeed, t he B ack PayA ct ’ s obj ect i ve of r emedy i ng “unfa i rl abor 6 pr act i ces ” w oul d notbe adva nced bya dec i s i on aw ar di ng i nt er es ton paym ent s al r eady r ece i ved. See M art i n, 184 F. 3d at1372. V. W ith o u t n e e d f

o r e lab o ra tio n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly13

c a lcu late d S c h u ltz’s f

rin g e b e n e f

its. A d d iti o n a lly , the D istric t C o u rt a c ted w ith in its di s cr et i on t o notent ert ai n ar gum ent s and evi dence notr efl ect ed i n Schul t z’ s or i gi nal mo t i o n f o rs u mma r yj u d g me n to rr e p l y , i n c l u d i n g S c h u l t z ’ s a t t e mp tt o e x t e n d th e t i me f ra m e f o r c a lcu latin g h e a lth b e n e f its. W e f in d S c h u ltz’s re m a in in g c o n ten tio n s u n tim e ly a n d w ith o u t m e rit. ****** W e have cons i der ed al l cont ent i ons r ai s ed bythe part i es and conc l ude thatno f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n is n e c e s s a ry. W e w i l l r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforfi nal comput at i on of i nt er es tdue on the back- payamount pai d on A pr i l 14, 2008, i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s opi ni on. W e trus tthat th is s tr a ig h tf

o rw a rd m a th e m a tic a l c a lc u la tio n w ill m a rk th e e n d o f th is in te rm in a b le c a s e . O n a ll o th e r p o in ts th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt w ill b e a f f ir m e d .