According to the decision, the plaintiff filed a complaint on August 15, 2005, claiming that first, the government’s acts “constitute a breach of the employment contract which was entered into between the plaintiff and the VA,” and that he suffered financial loss and emotional distress.
But the courts have established that federal officials who generate expectations in their employees and then disappoint them do not ipso facto create a contract liability running from the federal government to the employee.
Since the plaintiff was employed by virtue of an appointment, rather than an employment contract, the court said it lacked jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to hear the plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract.
According to appeals court precedent, the entitlement of federal workers to pay and benefits must be determined by reference to the statutes and regulations governing compensation, rather than to ordinary contract principles.
The courts have consistently refused to give effect to government-fostered expectations that, had they arisen in the private sector, might well have formed the basis for a contract.