Background
State Department employee Samara L. A. Simmons filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint alleging discrimination and retaliation. In March 2019, she settled those claims. Among other obligations, the State Department agreed to pay $29,000 to her attorney, destroy specified hospital medical records in its possession, and expunge designated sensitive information—including references to her being a sexual-assault victim—from her Diplomatic Security file.
After obtaining records through a Freedom of Information Act request and related litigation, Simmons alleged that the State Department had retained information covered by the settlement. She unsuccessfully pursued the agreement’s administrative compliance process and then sued in federal district court. The district court transferred her breach-of-settlement claim to the Court of Federal Claims, where the government moved to dismiss her third amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the settlement agreement could fairly be interpreted as contemplating monetary damages for breach and therefore supported Tucker Act jurisdiction over Simmons’s contract claims. The agreement concerned her employment prospects, did not expressly disavow monetary relief, and imposed individualized duties requiring the government to destroy or expunge specified records. The court rejected the government’s argument that the agreement’s administrative remedies made it exclusively equitable.
The court nevertheless dismissed Simmons’s requests for reinstatement of her underlying EEO claims because the Court of Federal Claims lacked authority to grant that injunctive relief. It likewise dismissed any independent tort claims for reputational injury, invasion of privacy, emotional distress, or similar harms.
Finally, the court dismissed the remaining contract claims under RCFC 12(b)(6). Simmons alleged economic losses, impaired advancement and security-clearance prospects, and deterred employment opportunities, but did not identify concrete lost income, a specific position denied because of the alleged breach, or other facts plausibly connecting the breach to actual damages. Her implied-covenant claim suffered from the same damages defect and was also duplicative of her express breach claim. Her alternative request for nominal damages could not save the case because the Court of Federal Claims lacks authority to award nominal damages.
Key Takeaways
- A federal employment settlement may support Tucker Act jurisdiction when it imposes individualized obligations related to future employment, contains no express bar on monetary relief, and can fairly be read to contemplate damages for breach.
- Jurisdiction over a money-mandating settlement does not permit the Court of Federal Claims to order reinstatement of underlying EEO claims or adjudicate independent tort claims.
- A plaintiff must plead concrete, non-speculative damages and facts plausibly connecting those damages to the alleged breach; generalized assertions about lost earnings, advancement, clearances, or employment opportunities are insufficient.
- Nominal damages cannot cure the absence of plausibly alleged actual damages in the Court of Federal Claims.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the jurisdictional question from the merits of a settlement-breach claim. Even when a federal employment settlement is money-mandating and falls within Tucker Act jurisdiction, the plaintiff must still plausibly allege actual damages caused by the government’s breach.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores the need to identify specific lost positions, promotions, compensation, expenses, or other measurable injuries—and to explain how the alleged breach caused them. Speculation that retained records might impair future employment will not sustain a contract claim.