Section 1346(a)(2), known as the "Little Tucker Act", confers concurrent jurisdiction in district court and the Claims Court for civil actions against the United States not exceeding $10,000 in amount. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2)); see also Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 759 (E.D. Penn. 2005). The Court of Federal Claims, however, has exclusive jurisdiction over monetary claims under EPA exceeding $10,000.
To do this, Susko must first assert that the relevant actor at Weidenhammer knew about her protected conduct before she was fired on September 19, 2018. Seybert v. Int'l Grp., Inc., No. CIV.A. 07-3333, 2009 WL 722291, at *24 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (citing Iver v. Everson, 382 F.Supp.2d 749, 758 (E.D. Pa. 2005)). The Third Circuit has expressly recognized the requirement of knowledge by the decision-maker in retaliation cases.
amount in controversy); Ashbourne v. Geithner, No. CIV.A. RWT-11-2818, 2012 WL 2874012, at *4 (D. Md. July 12, 2012), aff'd, 491 F. App'x 429 (4th Cir. 2012) (dismissing EPA claim for lack of jurisdiction where the claim exceeded $10,000); Scott v. McHugh, No. 5:10CV00184 SWW, 2011 WL 1464853, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 15, 2011) (dismissing EPA claim where the plaintiff did not provide an "unequivocal limitation of her damages to $10,000.00 which would allow the Court to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction); Moorehead v. Chertoff, No. C05-1767JLR, 2007 WL 737370, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 5, 2007) (acknowledging that the Ninth Circuit has not decided this precise jurisdictional question but transferring plaintiff's EPA claim to the Court of Federal Claims based on the rationale of prior cases and the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1346); Bolden v. Ashcroft, 515 F. Supp. 2d 127, 136 (D.D.C. 2007) (dismissing claim for lack of jurisdiction because it far exceeded "the $10,000 limit); Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 759 (E.D. Pa. 2005), aff'd, 238 F. App'x 834 (3d Cir. 2007) (dismissing plaintiff's EPA claim for lack of jurisdiction because it exceeded $10,000). This Court's cursory search of cases from the Court of Federal Claims found at least 40 cases in which the Court of Federal Claims decided Equal Pay Act cases in the last 10 years, including at least six in 2018 and 2019.
For Ms. Seybert to show a causal connection between Title VII protected conduct and an adverse employment action, she must be able to show that the relevant actors at IGI had knowledge of her protected conduct. Iver v. Everson, 382 F Supp. 2d 749, 758 (E.D. Pa. 2005). The evidence suggests that Ken Reucassel spoke to Mr. Marchand concerning Ms. Seybert's initial complaint about Mr. Marchand's staring at her breasts. It also suggests that both Ken Reucassel and Ms. Meilke talked to Mr. Marchand about Ms. Seybert's complaint concerning the sexual comment at the Recognition Dinner. Taken together, the evidence is sufficient to support a causal link between Ms. Seybert's protected conduct and Mr. Marchand's harassment.
Also critically important in this case is the fact that Defendant has proffered uncontroverted evidence that none of the individuals responsible for taking the adverse employment actions against Doe were aware of his prior EEO activity. SMF 139-52;compareIyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 758 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (finding no causal connection when unrebutted evidence showed that the decisionmaker had no knowledge of plaintiff's EEO complaints). Although Doe asserts by speculation that the filing of his EEO complaints was "common knowledge," the record clearly demonstrates that his supervisors were not aware of Doe's prior EEO activity.
A quid pro quo sexual harassment claim requires evidence of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature and evidence that (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment or (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual. Iyer v. Everson, 382 F. Supp. 2d 749, 758 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (citing Bonenberger v. Plymouth Township, 132 F.3d 20, 27 (3d Cir. 1997)). Thus, Ms. Lignore's various allegations of "retaliation" could be an attempt to articulate a claim based on her perception that her rejection of Ms. Bogacki's supposed advances led to these events.