ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, United States District Judge.
Six former federal criminal investigators and Gulf War veterans sue the Office of Personnel Management and Katherine Archuleta,
Plaintiffs are six former federal investigators and Gulf War veterans
Between April 17, 1990 and June 23, 1994, each Plaintiff filed suit in the Claims Court under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, to contest his job classification as exempt from the overtime provisions of FLSA. The individual lawsuits were consolidated and captioned Adams v. United States, Civil Action No. 90-162C and Consolidated Cases (U.S. Ct. Fed. Claims). Adams was covered by the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 255 (Portal Act) (an amendment to the FLSA), which provides a two-year statute of limitations or, for willful violations, a three-year limitations period for unpaid overtime required by the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Thus, lawsuits filed in the Claims Court from 1990 through 1994 could challenge the non-receipt of overtime pay from 1988 through 1992 or, for willful violations, 1987 through 1991.
On October 30, 1992 and December 11, 1992, the Claims Court decided that GS-9 and GS-11 criminal investigators at BATF, DEA, IRS, ICE, and the U.S. Secret Service, as well as GS-12 criminal investigators at ICE, were non-exempt, covered by the FLSA, and therefore entitled to backpay. Pls. Facts ¶ 9. Plaintiffs Baldwin, Dillow, Gellick, and Johnson were among those plaintiffs covered by the Claims Court's decisions.
In 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), acting on behalf of the five agencies, entered into settlement agreements with the investigators who had been found eligible for FLSA overtime pay, including Plaintiffs Baldwin, Dillow, and Gellick. The settlement agreements provided that each eligible plaintiff would receive retroactive pay for "each pay period during which he or she was employed, for a period of no more than two years preceding the date a complaint was filed on his/her behalf until the date that the [agency] begins
Because Plaintiff Johnson was a GS-12 criminal investigator at ICE, it appears that certain of his claims were settled under the August 29, 2003 Partial Settlement Agreement Covering Plaintiffs at the GS-12 Grade Level in Occupational Code 1811 at BATF, IRS-CID, DEA, ICE and USSS. See DOJ Settlements at 24-33. The agreement provides that "the parties have entered into this Agreement, without waiving their rights with respect to any and all remaining issues regarding which plaintiffs are seeking additional recovery." Id. at 32.
On December 1, 2004, the Claims Court extended its FLSA non-exempt determination to GS-13 criminal investigators at all five federal agencies, including Plaintiff Armstrong. Nearly two years later, on November 22, 2006, DOJ and those investigators reached settlement agreements, each of which again provided that it would not affect "any right any plaintiff may have to continue to pursue a claim for backpay, liquidated damages, and/or interest for FLSA overtime ... against the United States not covered by this agreement." DOJ Settlements at 40. All of the cases consolidated in Adams v. United States had settled by August 28, 2013.
Plaintiff Grundberg, a GS-12 criminal investigator at OIG-Ag, was determined to be non-exempt, covered by the FLSA, and therefore entitled to backpay pursuant to a September 21, 2007 Claims Court decision. Joint Response [Dkt. 37] at 2-3. As noted by the parties, Plaintiff Grundberg's FLSA claim covering the pay period ending May 2, 1992 to the pay period ending October 29, 1994 was settled under a settlement agreement reached with Defendant United States on June 1, 2011. Id. at 3.
On the same dates between 1990 and 1994 that each Plaintiff filed suit, he also filed an administrative claim for backpay with GAO under the Barring Act. At that time, such administrative claims were not subject to a two- or three-year statute of limitations under the Portal Act. Instead, the Barring Act, which prescribes limitations periods for claims against the United States, provided:
31 U.S.C. § 3702. Until May 23, 1994, the Barring Act's general 6-year statute of limitations was applied by GAO to FLSA administrative claims. (In Matter of Transportation Systems Center, 57 Comp. Gen. 41 (1978); Matter of Harry G. Tomkowiak, 67 Comp. Gen. 247 (1988); Matter of Federal Firefighters, 68 Comp. Gen. 681 (1989).
The Comptroller General typically stayed administrative claims that were pending in court. As a result, GAO took no action on Plaintiffs' claims while they were pending in the Claims Court. On April 12, 1994, Plaintiffs' counsel wrote to GAO, alerting it to the decisions of the Claims Court that certain GS-9 through GS-12 criminal investigators were not exempt from FLSA and were entitled to overtime. Pls. Facts ¶ 11. The letter also reported that DOJ had settled the claims of all GS-9 through GS-12 criminal investigators who worked at the DEA, BATF and ICE. Id. Due to the different statutes of limitations (2 years under the Portal-to-Portal Act and 6 years under the Barring Act), Plaintiffs were seeking an additional four years' backpay for unpaid overtime.
On May 23, 1994, one month later, the Comptroller General issued his decision in In re Joseph M. Ford, 73 Comp. Gen. 157 (1994). Ford adopted the logic of the Claims Court in Armitage v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 483 (1991), aff'd, 991 F.2d 746 (Fed.Cir.1993), that the precise two- to three-year statute of limitations in the Portal-to-Portal Act governs claims to overtime pay from federal employees, and not the general six-year statute of limitations under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(1) that applied to most claims against the United States. See In re Ford, 73 Comp. Gen. at 160 ("For the reasons stated below, we agree with OPM and the other executive agencies that 29 U.S.C. 255(a) [the Portal Act] constitutes an exception to the 6-year statute of limitations period in 31 U.S.C. 3702(b).").
Shortly thereafter, on September 30, 1994, Congress rejected Ford when it enacted the Treasury-Postal Act for FY95.
Id. The legislative history of this provision shows that Senator [Paul] Sarbanes had introduced the "Fairness for Federal Employees Act," S.2274, on July 1, 1994, in direct response to Ford. When introducing S.2274, he explained that its purpose was "to reverse a very destructive ruling by the General Accounting Office [GAO] to apply a retroactive change in the statute of limitations from 6 years to 2 years for Federal employees to file back pay claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] ..., which goes against longstanding Federal policy and GAO's own interpretation of the appropriate statute of limitations...." 140 Cong. Rec. 15736 (July 1, 1994) (statement of Sen. Sarbanes). Senator Sarbanes noted that "the Office of Personnel Management and other Federal agencies have notified employees through regulations and bulletins, that they must file their FLSA claims within 6 years," in accord with this longstanding GAO policy. Id. The Bill would "require[] the Comptroller General of the United States to continue to apply a 6-year statute of limitation to any FLSA pay claims that have been filed before or have arisen before the date of enactment of this legislation." Id.
Since Plaintiffs' claims were filed between April 17, 1990 and June 23, 1994, and were subject to a six-year statute of limitations under the Treasury-Postal Act for FY95, Plaintiffs' counsel wrote again to GAO in October 1994, requesting a meeting to discuss their FLSA claims. In response, GAO advised Plaintiffs to seek relief from their respective employing agencies. Plaintiffs wrote to their respective agencies requesting settlement of their backpay claims because they were entitled to a six-year statute of limitations under Section 640 of the Treasury-Postal Act for FY95. The agencies refused; all five agencies denied Plaintiffs' claims, stating that they lacked authority to apply a six-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs appealed to GAO.
However, on November 19, 1995, Congress amended Section 640 of the Treasury-Postal Act for FY95. See Treasury-Postal Act for FY96. The November 1995 amendment included the following proviso:
Id. (emphasis added). The House Committee on Appropriations explained:
See Report 104-183, Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Bill, 1996, H.R.2020 (104th Congress 1st Session) (Report 104-183) at 43, 92. The amendment quoted was adopted.
Almost a year later, on October 19, 1996, the Comptroller General's authority to settle FLSA claims was transferred to the Director of OPM under Section 202(n)(1)(B) of the General Accounting Office Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-316, 110 Stat. 3843-44. At that time, Plaintiffs' administrative claims had still not been addressed by GAO and were transferred to OPM.
Three years later, on May 7 and May 24, 1999, having heard nothing from OPM, Plaintiffs' counsel requested a meeting to settle their FLSA claims. This time, however, Plaintiffs cited the five-year statute of limitations applicable to war veterans in the Barring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(2). Plaintiffs acknowledged that the six-year statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(1) had been amended, but averred that the five-year limitations period in 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(2), which specifically applied to Plaintiffs as Gulf War veterans, remained in force.
In May 1999, OPM responded through its Assistant General Counsel:
Pls. Ex. 24 (May 27, 1999 Letter from OPM to Plaintiffs' Counsel) [Dkt. 18-5] at 45 (emphasis added).
OPM's letter suggested that the agency was unaware that some Plaintiffs' claims had already been adjudicated by the Claims Court and settled by DOJ. Therefore, Plaintiffs' counsel responded:
Pls. Ex. 25 (June 22, 1999 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel to OPM) [Dkt. 18-5] at 47-48. OPM did not respond.
On January 12 and June 17, 2011, after the Claims Court's December 2004 decision that GS-13 Plaintiffs were also entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA and such Plaintiffs' subsequent November 2006 settlement with the DOJ, Plaintiffs' counsel wrote yet again to John Berry, then-director of OPM, to resolve their claims. Pls. Facts ¶ 28. The Deputy Associate Director of OPM's Merit System Audit and Compliance answered and asked for
Finally, on November 2, 2012, OPM decided that all of Plaintiffs' administrative claims were time-barred. See Compl. Ex. 1 (Armstrong Final OPM Decision) [Dkt. 1-1] at 5-6.
See Defs.' Mem [Dkt. 14] at 5.
OPM stated that Plaintiffs' reliance on the five-year statute of limitations under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(2) was "misplaced" because Congress amended the Barring Act when it passed Section 640 of the Treasury-Postal Act for 1996. Armstrong Final OPM Decision at 7. OPM opined that Congress had imposed a universal two- or three-year statute of limitations for all FLSA claims against the federal government, including federal employees in an on-going war. It concluded that "the plain language of section 640 precludes application of the statute of limitations provided for in 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(2) for FLSA claims." Id.
Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), alleging that OPM's final decisions were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Dkt. 14, and Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 19.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) challenges the adequacy of a complaint on its face, testing whether a plaintiff has properly stated a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is "plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment shall be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); accord Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Moreover, summary judgment is properly granted against a party who "after adequate time for discovery and upon motion ... fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than "the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" in support of its position. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In addition, if the evidence "is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted).
The APA requires a reviewing court to set aside agency action that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Tourus Records, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 259 F.3d 731, 736 (D.C.Cir.2001). In reviewing administrative action, the role of the district court is to "sit as an appellate tribunal" and review the case as a matter of law. Marshall Cnty. Health Care Auth. v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 1221, 1226 (D.C.Cir. 1993). Such review is limited to the administrative record, and "not some new record made initially in the reviewing court." Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973); accord Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala, 116 F.Supp.2d 166, 177 (D.D.C.2000).
When reviewing an agency's interpretation of a statute, a court must undertake a two-step analysis as set forth in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). See Mount Royal Joint Venture v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 745, 754 (D.C.Cir. 2007). First, a court must determine whether "Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue" and, if so, the court must "give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778. To decide whether Congress has addressed the precise question at issue, a court must analyze the text, purpose, and structure of the statute. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd. v. Leavitt, 469 F.3d 120, 124 (D.C.Cir. 2006).
If the statute is silent or ambiguous on the question, the court must proceed to the second step of the Chevron
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that OPM correctly interpreted 31 U.S.C. § 3702, as amended by Section 640 in the Treasury-Postal Act for FY96, when it denied Plaintiffs' claims as time-barred. Defendants further argue that OPM's interpretation of the statute is entitled to deference. Plaintiffs counter that their administrative claims were preserved as of the time they filed with GAO, and contest the notion that Section 640 of the Treasury-Postal Act for FY96 amended all provisions of 31 U.S.C. § 3702. Plaintiffs assert that the five-year statute of limitations for war veterans under Section 3702(b)(2) was not addressed in the legislation and, necessarily, remains in force. Plaintiffs also challenge that OPM's contention that its interpretation is entitled to deference; Plaintiffs argue the interpretation "contravene[s] ... clearly discernible legislative intent and [is] otherwise unreasonable." Mot. for Summ. J. at 21 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs filed claims with GAO between 1990 and 1994, claiming the right to backpay for unpaid overtime. See, e.g., Armstrong Final OPM Decision. Since Plaintiffs' claims with GAO and their suits before the Claims Court were filed simultaneously, the Claims Court had obviously not yet ruled whether some or all Plaintiffs were entitled to overtime pay. GAO followed its customary practice and held all Plaintiffs' claims without returning them, awaiting the Claims Court's decisions. OPM argues here that GAO lacked statutory authority to adjudicate the applicability of FLSA exemptions and only had authority to settle previously-adjudicated claims, i.e., to determine amounts due as backpay under FLSA once a different entity declared Plaintiffs eligible for overtime pay. OPM argues that Plaintiffs' claims
OPM never cites any statutory or regulatory authority by which it has sole authority to adjudicate — that is, decide contested agency claims that an FLSA exemption applies in the face of an employee challenge — claims of inappropriate classification and unpaid overtime. OPM has authority to issue regulations that govern classifications, which it has done, and individual agencies apply those regulations in deciding which employees are entitled to overtime pay, which Plaintiffs' employing agencies did. OPM's cites to Baca v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 354 (Fed.Cl. 1993) and Zumerling v. Devine, 769 F.2d 745 (Fed.Cir.1985) do not alter this analysis, as they only reflect OPM's rulemaking authority.
Curiously, OPM never addresses FLSA §§ 204(f) and 216, which specifically authorize public employees to file lawsuits in court without prior administrative exhaustion. The FLSA authorizes OPM "to administer the provisions of this chapter with respect to any individual employed by the United States [with certain irrelevant exceptions]. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect the right of an employee to bring an action for unpaid minimum wages, or unpaid overtime compensation, and liquidated damages under section 216(b) of this title." 29 U.S.C. § 204(f). (emphasis added). In turn, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) states that "[a]n action to recover the liability prescribed in either of the preceding sentences may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and on behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated [with an unrelated exception]." Id. OPM has recognized this alternative avenue for relief in its Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Letter No. 551-9, issued on March 30, 1976, in which OPM stated:
Armstrong Final OPM Decision at 4 (emphasis added). In its letters denying Plaintiffs' claims for overtime pay, OPM cited and quoted Letter No. 551-9, ignoring its last sentence. Id.
Plaintiffs here each filed a lawsuit, later consolidated, before the Claims Court between 1990 and 1994, on the same dates that each man filed his claim for backpay with GAO. Plaintiffs did not ask GAO to adjudicate, or decide, their rights to backpay; their Claims Court lawsuits were for that purpose. Regulations had been issued defining exempt and non-exempt jobs, the relevant five agencies had interpreted and applied those regulations to Plaintiff investigators, and Plaintiffs complained about the application of the regulations in Claims Court, while simultaneously seeking a backpay settlement with GAO. It appears to have been standard procedure to file with GAO and to await a court opinion, and OPM does not argue otherwise. While OPM argues vehemently that it (or, more specifically, its predecessor, the Civil Service Commission), had authority to decide which positions were exempt, see 29 U.S.C. § 204(f) (agency "authorized to administer the provisions of this chapter with respect to any individual employed by the United States"), Plaintiffs' lawsuits and GAO claims did not contravene that authority.
See Armstrong Final OPM Decision at 3-4 (quoting In re Claims Representatives and Examiners — Exemption from Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Coverage, B-51325 (Comp. Gen.), 1976 WL 9626, at *2 (Oct. 7, 1976)). This analysis does not carry the weight that OPM would give it. OPM has the "authority to make final determinations" on FLSA coverage in its role as administrator and regulator; OPM's "final determinations" then are applied by each agency, as happened here. What is missing from the argument altogether is the basis for OPM's assertion that a federal employee who disagrees with OPM's final determination, as applied, must file a claim with OPM before filing suit. To the contrary, the express language of the FLSA states otherwise.
The Court concludes that OPM has failed to demonstrate that administrative exhaustion is mandated before a federal employee could bring an FLSA claim to court between 1990 and 1994. OPM does not contest the customary practice at GAO of holding federal FLSA claims until adjudicated elsewhere (by the Claims Court or CSC) and then settling the claims under the six-year statute of limitations GAO applied at the time. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims, filed simultaneously with the Claims Court and administratively with GAO between 1990 and 1994, were filed timely and preserved their rights.
The Treasury-Postal Act for FY95 imposed a two-year statute of limitations on federal-employee FLSA claims that were filed after June 30, 1994. Since all Plaintiffs' claims were filed with GAO and with the Claims Court before that date, this limitation does not apply to Plaintiffs. However, the Treasury-Postal Act for FY96 amended the law and specified that the six-year statute of limitations "shall not apply to any claim where the employee has received any compensation for overtime hours worked during the period covered by the claim." Pub. L. 104-52, 109 Stat. 468 (1995).
Plaintiffs respond that they are covered by the five-year statute of limitations granted to war veterans under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(2), and that neither Treasury-Postal Act amended that statute of limitations. OPM does not dispute that all Plaintiffs here are veterans of the Gulf War.
Whether OPM correctly decided that Plaintiffs are not entitled to a five-year statute of limitations under Section 3072(b)(2) depends on whether OPM properly interpreted the Barring Act, as amended by Section 640 of the Treasury-Postal Act for FY96. Therefore, the Court conducts the analysis required by Chevron. See Chevron, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694. The inquiry requires the Court to first assess whether "Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue." Id. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778. If so, the Court must "give
When Plaintiffs filed claims with GAO from 1990 to 1994, the Barring Act provided that a "claim must be received by the Comptroller General within 6 years after the claim accrues except as provided in this chapter or another law." 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(1). Until Ford in May 1994, this provision was interpreted by the Comptroller General to apply to all claims against the United States, including federal-employee backpay claims under the FLSA. In the very next subsection of Section 3702, the Barring Act provided that "[w]hen the claim of a member of the armed forces accrues during war or within 5 years before war begins, the claim must be presented ... within 5 years after peace is established or within the period provided in clause (1) of this subsection." Id. § 3702(b)(2).
Congress amended the Barring Act by way of Section 640 of the Treasury-Postal Act for FY95, which codified a six-year statute of limitations for federal FLSA claims filed before June 30, 1994, leaving in effect the two- and three-year limitations period for claims filed after June 30, 1994. Pub. L. 103-329, 108 Stat. 2382 (1994). Further, Congress amended Section 640 again in November 1995 to limit recovery for unpaid overtime; the amendment specified that the six-year statute of limitations "shall not apply to any claim where the employee has received any compensation for overtime hours worked during the period covered by the claim under any other provision of law...." Treasury-Postal Act of FY96, Pub. L. 104-52, 109 Stat. 468 (1995).
In the Treasury-Postal Act for FY95, Section 640 stated that it applied to "Section 3702 of title 31, United States Code." In turn, the Treasury-Postal Act for FY96 stated that it amended Section 640 of the Treasury-Postal Act for FY95. However, Congress expressly modified only the normal six-year statute of limitations contained in Section 3702(b)(1) of the Barring Act, for the purpose of limiting federal FLSA claims. Even though an agency interpretation is entitled to deference, see Mead Corp., 533 U.S. at 230-31, 121 S.Ct. 2164, this Court will not jettison the clear statutory language applicable to claims against the United States by war veterans in Section 3702(b)(2), which is still part of the law, despite other changes to Section 3702.
Questions about the scope of the amendments to the Barring Act are resolved by reviewing the underlying congressional purposes in September 1994 and November 1995. See Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 469 F.3d at 124 (noting that a court must
Fewer than five months later, Congress enacted the Treasury-Postal Act for FY95 and, in Section 640, adopted a similar distinction between a six-year and two-year statute of limitations for federal FLSA claims: claims filed before June 30, 1994 would be subject to a six-year statute of limitations, while claims filed after that date would be subject to a two-year statute of limitations. The limited legislative history shows that Congress did not act in a vacuum. Section 640 was adopted both to limit and to codify the Ford decision; it only modified 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(1). See Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 650, 94 S.Ct. 2431, 41 L.Ed.2d 374 (1974) ("The Congress did not enact the Consumer Credit Protection Act in a vacuum."); Planned Parenthood of Metro. Wash., D.C., Inc. v. Horner, No. 88-1751, 1988 WL 126240, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 1988) ("Even if the statute could be considered ambiguous ..., Chevron is inapplicable for another reason as well. Quite simply, Congress was not operating in a vacuum when it passed Section 618.").
As OPM argues, Congress amended Section 640 in 1995 by adding the following sentence: "This section shall not apply to any claim where the employee has received any compensation for overtime hours worked during the period covered by the claim under any other provision of law...." Treasury-Postal Act for FY96. The additional sentence does not change the character of Section 640 as originally enacted. The proviso merely limited the application of Section 640, which, at its broadest, only applied to claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(1). The purpose behind the amendment to Section 640 in the Treasury-Postal Act for FY96 appears to have been cost and "fairness" to civilian government employees who did not file an FLSA claim before June 30, 1994. Report 104-183 at 43, 92. A longer period for filing FLSA claims by government employees off at war would not contradict either of these rationales; indeed, Congress made no whisper of an intention to alter their rights.
This conclusion is supported by the terms of 31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)(2) itself. On its face, subsection (b)(2) was enacted to protect service members at war whose claims might otherwise be compromised by their military service. For this reason, war veterans were, and are, given additional time to file any claim against the United States after the cessation of hostilities. Subsection (b)(2) operates independently of the general provisions of subsection (b)(1); subsection (b)(2) specifies that veterans can file a qualifying claim "5 years after peace is established, or within the period provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection, whichever is later." Id. (emphasis added). This language demonstrates that Congress fully intends to permit war veterans to file claims under either statute of limitations. It is a basic canon of statutory interpretation that "`[a] statute should be construed so that effect
All Plaintiffs are deemed to have timely filed their claims as of the date of their filings with the Claims Court. As a result, Plaintiffs Armstrong, Baldwin, Dillow, Gellick, Johnson and Grundberg can recover for the entire claim period under the five-year statute of limitations — that is, for all claims that accrued within five years before the Gulf War commenced on August 2, 1990 — minus monies paid under their DOJ Settlements.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 14] and grant Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 19]. Therefore, judgment on liability will be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and the case is remanded to OPM to adjudicate and process damages in accordance with FLSA and other applicable laws, and Plaintiffs' respective employing agencies are directed to compensate them in accordance with OPM's determinations. A memorializing Order accompanies this Opinion.
For the reasons stated in the Opinion issued simultaneously with this Order, it is hereby
This is a final appealable order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). This case is closed.
