The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has denied pay to a group
of airport security workers at the level they were promised
when they were appointed by the Transportation Security
Administration, finding that even though TSA “made promises
it couldn’t keep,” the workers did not have enforceable
contracts with the federal government.
According to the decision, the plaintiffs sued for breach
of contract, seeking lost wages and benefits. The government
filed to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
arguing that because the plaintiffs were appointed, the
court lacks jurisdiction over them as conditional appointees.
However, the plaintiffs said they were hired under contract
and were “third party beneficiaries of a breached contract
between TSA and their former employer,” a company paid by
TSA to continue screening operations while the fledgling
agency got on its feet.
Most of the plaintiffs accepted had offers of conditional
appointment, and some were promised pay at the rate they
received in their former positions, but wound up getting
about $2,000 less, while others were promised supervisor
positions paying $13,000 more than the screener positions
they wound up with.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs were appointees and
so could not compensate them, citing a ruling 20 years ago—
in Shaw v. United States – that stated, “federal officials
who by act or word generate expectations in the persons
they employ, and then disappoint them, do not ipso facto
create a contract liability running from the federal
government to the employee, as they might if the employer
were not the government.”
