United States District Court, District of Columbia
CAROLYNE G. JOHNSON Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TANYA
S. CHUTKAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Carolyne G. Johnson, a former District of Columbia Public
School (“DCPS”) employee, brings this action
against Defendant Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Treasury seeking reversal of the Office of the District of
Columbia Pensions’ (“ODCP”) decision
regarding her retirement benefits. (ECF No. 1
(“Compl.”))
Defendant
moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 8 (“Def.’s Mot. for
Summ. J.”)) For the reasons set forth below,
Defendant’s motion will be GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Statutory Framework
DCPS
employees are eligible to participate in the District of
Columbia Teachers’ Retirement Plan (the
“Plan”), for which the Federal Government and the
District Government share responsibility. See
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat.
251. The Federal Government, through the Treasury Department,
is responsible for funding Plan benefits based on teacher
service performed on or before June 30, 1997. See
D.C. Code § 1-701; see also Id . at
§§ 1-801.01–1-801.02 (defining retirement
program as any teacher retirement program, as described in
§ 1-702(7), in effect on the day before June 30, 1997).
The District Government administers the program through an
independent agency, the District of Columbia Retirement Board
(“DCRB”). See D.C. Code §§
1-711, 1-809.01.
If a
Plan participant disagrees with a benefit determination, she
may request reconsideration from the DCRB. See 31
C.F.R. § 29.404 (b)–(d). If she disagrees with the
reconsideration determination, she may file an appeal with
ODCP. See 31 C.F.R. § 29.405. ODCP’s
decision is considered a final agency action, from which a
party may seek judicial review. See 31 C.F.R.
§§ 29.405–29.406.
B.
Plaintiff’s Employment and Plan Contribution
History[1]
Plaintiff
began her career with DCPS as a temporary employee on
September 1, 1961. (See A.R. 498.)[2] She was hired as
a permanent DCPS employee on October 1, 1963. (Id.)
It is undisputed that Plaintiff contributed to the Plan from
1963 to her resignation on July 29, 1970. (Id.) The
parties disagree, however, on whether Plaintiff was issued a
refund for the same period on October 6, 1970.
(Compare A.R. 498 and 565 with ECF No. 10
(“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 5 ¶ F.)
Plaintiff
resumed employment with DCPS on September 22, 1971 and was an
off-and-on employee until her final period of employment
began on September 1, 1979. (See A.R. 498.)
On
October 1, 1990, Plaintiff sent a letter to the District of
Columbia Retirement Office, in which she mentioned that she
had previously “retired” but returned to the DCPS
and stated: “I am requesting that you please compute
the amount of money I need to pay back into
my retirement to bring it into compliance.” (A.R. 655
(emphasis added).)
On
January 29, 1991, the D.C. Retirement Section responded to
Plaintiff, informing her that she could purchase 9 years, 4
months, and 29 days of creditable service for a lump sum of
$9, 743.81. (A.R. 534.) The letter also included the
following:
-
BREAKDOWN:
|
Due 06/30/91
|
00 yrs., 09 mos., 07 days = 08/30/60 –
06/06/61 Outside Teaching
|
= $1, 192.37
|
02 yrs., 01 mos., 00 days = 09/01/61 –
09/30/63 Temporary [Teaching]
|
= $3, 065.82
|
06 yrs., 06 mos., 22 days = 10/01/63 –
07/28/70 Redeposit Time
|
= $5, 485.62
|