Document: 47 L.Ed.2d 114 96 S.Ct. 948 424 U.S. 392 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Herman R. TESTAN and Francis L. Zarrilli. No. 74-753. Argued Nov. 12, 1975. Decided March 2, 1976. Motion Denied May 3, See 425 957, 1736. Syllabus Respondent Government trial attorneys with civil service grade GS-13 classifications requested their employing agency to reclassify positions GS-14, contending that duties responsibilities met the requirements for higher were identical those of other classified as GS-14 in another agency, under principle "equal pay substantially equal work" prescribed Classification Act, they entitled classification. But Civil Service Commission (CSC) on appeal, denied reclassification. Respondents then sued Court Claims, seeking reclassification date first administrative denial request, each backpay, computed at difference between his salary claimed salary, from date. The judge backpay but held CSC's refusal respondents was arbitrary an order remanding case CSC directions so respondents. court en banc, while disapproving judge's recommendation empowered direct reclassification, if determine it had made erroneous classification authorized award money damages lost, compare respondents' capricious, power reconsider its decision. Accordingly, remanded make comparison report result court. Held : 1. Tucker which merely confers jurisdiction upon Claims whenever a substantive right enforceable against United States exists, does not itself support action taken by this case. Pp. 397-398. 2. Neither Act nor Back Pay creates period wrongful 398-407. 205 Ct.Cl. 330, 499 F.2d 690, reversed remanded. John. Rupp, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Edwin J. McDermott, Philadelphia, Pa., Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 This is suit federal backpay. It presents substantial issue concerning relief available tribunal. 2 * plaintiff-respondents, Herman Testan Zarrilli, are employed Office Counsel, Defense Personnel Support Center, Supply Agency, Philadelphia. They represent certain matters come before Armed Services Board Contract Appeals Department Defense. Their subject 5 U.S.C. § 5101 Et seq., presently GS-13. 3 In December 1969 respondents, through Chief Attorney, GS-14. asserted ground standards promulgated General Attorney Series GS-905-0. addition, contended Division, Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Base, Dayton, Ohio, work," 5101(1)(A),1 4 after audit position specialist, concluded assigned properly level Commission's standards. On reached same conclusion also ruled referenced Command proper method two instituted Claims.2 Each sought directing (May 8, 1970) (and appropriate within-grade step), judge, long opinion, App. 43-117, due allegedly Id., 57. he arbitrary, discriminatory, supported evidence, ibid., matter law direction 58, 117. 6 considered banc divided 4-3. majority disapproved create entitlement governmental position. "If depends exercise discretion someone else we cannot substitute our own discretion." 691, 332 (1974). felt, however, classification, determination "could legal could enforce judgment." F.2d, Ct.Cl., 333. 7 agreed failure capricious. 331. observed: "Ordinarily . capricious refuse consider employees than ones complaining." went say: "This peculiar facts," "all belong small readily manageable cadre, jobs have large nexus shared common, specifically pointed out complaining employees." 332. remand statute, 86 Stat. 652, now codified part 28 s 1491 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), decision "under directions." pursuant Rule 149(b), court.3 8 dissent argued limited judgments and, since none been or be ordered case, without even Commission. stated claim granted, asking positions, pay, never appointed. further there no constitutional one has appointed; job payable only person appointed position; authority take over appointing Constitution, Art. II, placed Executive Department. declaratory judgment, function within court's jurisdiction. Finally, neither evidence. 692-694, 334-338. 9 We granted certiorari because importance measure Claims' statutory jurisdiction, significance administration system. 420 923, 95 1116, 43 (1975). II 10 turn respective statutes advanced Claims. 11 A. Act. central provision establishing 1491: 12 "The shall render judgment any founded either Congress, regulation executive department, express implied contract States, liquidated unliquidated cases sounding tort."4 13 recently occasion examine formulation. v. King, 395 1, 89 1501, 23 52 (1969), reviewed (390 894, 182 631) Declaratory Judgment 2201. observed established Congress 1855; "(t)hroughout entire history," until King filed, "its claims Government"; decided "reaffirmed ts view Claims," "the passage 1887 expanded equitable matters"; "neither creating amendment it" King's "not actual, States"; what requesting "essentially kind throughout history grant." U.S., 2-3, S.Ct., 1502. hold did grant judgments. Cited all Glidden Co. Zdanok, 370 530, 557, 82 1459, 1476, 671 (1962) (Harlan, J.) (plurality opinion); Jones, 131 669, 33 L.Ed. 90 (1889); Alire, Wall. 573, 575, 18 947 (1868). Lee Thornton, 139, 853, 85 (1975); Richardson Morris, 409 464, 93 629, 34 647 (1973); Sherwood, 312 584, 589-591, 61 767, 771, 1058 (1941). 14 course, jurisdictional statute; damages. recognized exists. Eastport S.S. Corp. 372 1002, 1007-1009, 178 599, 605-607 (1967). therefore must whether invoked confer recover classifications. 15 B. Inasmuch proposed, 57, 5596, need reach construe 333, implicit favor violation gives rise lost reason 16 established, sovereign, "is immune save consents terms consent define entertain suit." 586, 769. And said, context, waiver traditional sovereign immunity "cannot unequivocally expressed." 4, 1503; Soriano 352 270, 276, 77 269, 273, 306 (1957). Thus, except consented cause "there more suits States." 587-588, 770. 17 find expressly makes liable improper To sure, "purpose" section 5101(1)(A), "to provide plan whereby work will followed." subsequent sections, set forth grading particular provisions procedures ensure met. these several sections contains who erroneously classified. answer fact, Amici observations. argue fundamentally waives respect invoking statute regulation, generally accepted important forms redress, including said confused very different issues, namely, sovereignty, created, where right, measures necessary redress violation. 19 argument persuade us. As above, jurisdictional, specificity. do rest contract; seek return paid them Government. follows "can fairly interpreted mandating compensation Federal damage sustained." 1009, 607; Mosca 417 1382, 1386, 189 283, 290 cert. denied, 399 911, 2197, 26 565 (1970). ready tamper principles might thought should responsive conception enlightened policy. Brief Curiae 9-11. immunity, regard unsound amici rights necessity such 20 perceive nothing Regional Rail Reorganization Cases, 419 102, 335, 42 320 (1974), cited centering Just Compensation Clause Fifth Amendment ("nor private property public use, just compensation"), lends These tied language, purpose, self-executing aspects provision, Jacobs 13, 16, 54 26, 27, 78 142 (1933), effect eliminates consideration States. 21 next relating employment automatically because, so, employee would remedy, inasmuch access forum may redress.5 22 Here again persuaded. Where defendant plaintiff suing improperly exacted retained, basis unless stated, "in can 1008, 607. see akin context present action, discharge suspension. situation, least 1883, emoluments legally disqualified. Wickersham, 201 390, 469, 50 798 (1906). There here respondent benefit claim, instead, been, not, rule duly it. McLean, 750, 24 579 (1878); Ganse 376 900, 902, 180 183, 186 purport change rule, suggestion legislative intended alter Selman 498 1354, 204 675 pressed us respondents,6 correct, clearly distinguishable. rested flatly mandatory contained 37 202(L ) officer "serving Assistant Advocate Navy basic rear admiral (lower half) brigadier general, appropriate." kind. 25 it, left remediless, assert, party wrongfully remedy retroactive prospective hand, resulting damages, other. Edelman Jordan, 415 651, 94 1347, 39 662 Respondents, avenue elaborate structured §§ 5101-5115. recognize. 13-15. Among Act's along line requiring engage supervisory review agency's classifications, necessary, individual 5110; allowing reclassify, 5112; revoke suspend classify 5111. Indeed, describe it: "(T)he hortatory catalogue high principles." 15. built-in response requirements. Review brought into play request employee. 5112(b). noted, that. A second possible too, seemingly, way mandamus, 1361, district way, also, claims. n. 5, Supra. thus, entirely remedy. remedies assert entitled. Additional courts construct. 27 note correct many carefully circumstances rendered superfluous. avoid proceedings. If, then, grade, announced prepared motion enter whatever during Chambers 451 1045, 196 (1971). Pub.L. 92-415, authorizes "issue orders restoration position, placement duty status, correction applicable records" complement afforded "remand body" "within jurisdiction." applies already litigation case.7 29 cite Allison 1035, 263 (1971), Pettit 488 1026, 203 207 (1973), precedent Those found employees' "entitlement" Order, extent distinguishable instant cf. Ogletree McNamara, 449 (CA6 1971); Gnotta 1271 (CA8 1969), 397 934, 941, 115 (1970); Manhattan-Bronx Postal Union Gronouski, 350 451, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 321 (1965), 382 978, 548, 469 (1966). extent, rely concept admission misclassification reasoning case; analysis rejected, necessarily rejected. supra. 30 C. unnecessary evaluate arriving decision, apply, view, wrongful-classification authorize recovery wages "undergone unjustified unwarranted personnel resulted withdrawal reduction of" otherwise 5596(b). statute's language monetary reductions removals, suspensions, "other actions affecting allowances (that) occur course reassignments full-time part-time work." S.Rep.No.1062, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., (1966), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1966, pp. 2097, 2099. consistently construed CFR 550.803(e) So Desmond 507, 527 (1973). 31 For years viewed discretionary judicial review, absence eliminating discretion, refused intervene discharged. Compare Keim 177 290, 293-296, 574, 575-576, 44 774 (1900), Sampson Murray, 61, 69-70, 937, 942-943, 166 Relief invariably promotion grounds. 296, 576; 753, 579. 32 provided Lloyd-LaFollette 7501, adverse deprivation pay. agencies continue determining most conditions employment. One continuing aspect mentioned receive appointed, though performed grade. override depart enactment easily intention.8 contention situation presented, whose directly question here. supports proposition. Walker Kleindienst, 357 F.Supp. 749 (D.C.1973) (cited respondents), addressed retroactivity Equal Employment Opportunity 1972. Ainsworth 176, 185 110 (1968) ), involved discharged subsequently reinstated. provides doubting words indicate, subjected III 35 conclude additional require compared agency. 36 error when That reversed, dismiss suit. Reversed 38 ordered. STEVENS took Title 5101. "Purpose. "It purpose chapter "(1) rate "(A) followed .." plaintiff-respondents pursued exhausted remedies. inconsistent, recent resolved votes (1971); 263, Small 470 1020, 200 (1972); Applegate 521 1406, 999 Roseman 998 Kaeserman 983 Barnum 529 531, 1024 1494 grants amount "by unsettled account acknowledge conceivable able obtain future mandamus 1971. Hampton, Civ. 71-2250 (E.D.Pa.). apparently lies dormant reactivation. states proceed "will contest relief." Reply 7. 12; Tr. Oral Arg. 25-28. committee reports 92-415 confirm understanding "does extend class S.Rep.No.92-1066, p. 1972, 3116, 3117; H.R.Rep.No.92-1023, (1972). VII Rights 1964 employees. 103, 2000e(a) IV). nature explicit Brown Administration, 507 1300 (CA2 1974), 421 987, 1989, 476

Category: 8