John Doe, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that statutorily provided discretion to award payment is limited “because once a condition is met, namely that the head of an agency states that a position meets the criteria listed . . . , the statute requires payment to employees with that position”
• stating that although the Court of Federal Claims erred in dismiss- ing a “claim for lack of jurisdiction, the error was harmless because the claim should have been dismissed on the mer- its”
• treating a dismissal of a complaint for want of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act as a dismissal on the merits
• noting that a statute requiring the payment of administratively uncontrollable overtime pay for employees holding certain positions was money mandating, even though it required the government to determine whether any particular’ position met the requirements of the statute
• discussing the Tucker Act’s money-mandating requirement and explaining that “jurisdiction pursuant to the Tucker Act is derived from the underlying substantive law,” which must mandate compensation from the government
• affirming dismissal where an otherwise money-mandating source “does not require payment” to the plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).