Free Response to Motion [Dispositive] - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00384-CCM

Document 12

Filed 11/20/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS KATHLEEN SCHRADER V No. 06-00384C (Judge Christine O.C. Miller)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint The plaintiff opposes the motion of the defendant to dismiss the proceedings on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In support it is alleged as follows; 1) The plaintiff concedes that the court lacks jurisdiction over allegations that involve Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e) which charges have been decided by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff also concedes that some of the claims for equal pay are time barred. The remainder of the allegations of the plaintiff are timely and before the Court. 2) The facts of the case are distinct from the three major cases relied upon by the Government, to wit, Keene Corporation v. United States,508 US 200(1993),Harbuck v. United States,378 Fed3rd 1324(2004),and Loveladies Harbor Inc. v. United States,27 Fed 3rd 1545(1994). In each of those cases, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the in the United States Court of Federal Claims while an action was pending in a local federal court. The Courts properly held that there cannot be two cases pending at the same time in the separate courts as they require the Government to litigate the same case twice and it was a waste of resources. 3) In the case at hand, the plaintiff filed a Title VII lawsuit which contained a count

Case 1:06-cv-00384-CCM

Document 12

Filed 11/20/2006

Page 2 of 3

alleging a violation of the federal Equal Pay Act. for the disparate pay scale that she was receiving from the agency compared to male counterparts who were doing the same work. It was only after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the action that it certified the count that dealt with allegations of a violation of the Equal pay Act to this Court for an adjudication. At no time where there two separate claims pending at one time to harass the Government into dual litigation. The issues are viable in this Court and it prayed that the court deny the motion and allow the case to proceed to a finality with a trial. 4) It is the Government that forced the case to this Court by alleging a lack of jurisdiction in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The government cannot have it both ways when it seeks to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff is entitled to have her claim litigated in one court which was granted by Congress with the passage of the Equal Pay Act..

Sol Z. Rosen Esq.#10967 2501 Calvert Street NW #212 Washington, D.C. 20008 (202) 296-8485 Fax(202) 296-9375 The Certificate of Service. I certify that a copy of the above was served on November 20,2006 by ECF file and a copy was also served by first class mail on the 20 of November 2006 on the department of Justice.

Sol Z. Rosen Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00384-CCM

Document 12

Filed 11/20/2006

Page 3 of 3