Pamela Y. Dominick v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-5133
PAMELA Y. DOMINICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Pamela Y. Dominick, of Dayton, Ohio, pro se.
Christopher L. Krafchek, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-
appellee. With him on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director, and Alan J. Lo Re, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims
Judge Nancy B. Firestone

-- 1 of 3 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-5133
PAMELA Y. DOMINICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in 09-CV-096, Judge Nancy B. Firestone.
__________________________
DECIDED: February 3, 2010
__________________________
Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER and RADER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Pamela Y. Dominick appeals from the final judgment of the United States Court
of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Dominick v. United
States, No. 09-96C (July 21, 2009). We affirm.
I
Ms. Dominick was employed for 18 years by the Department of the Air Force at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio before her termination on August 1, 1993,
based on charges that she misused a government-issued credit card.
Ms. Dominick filed her complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on February 19,
2009, alleging that she had been terminated because of her race. The United States

-- 2 of 3 --

moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that exclusive
jurisdiction over employment discrimination claims lies in the United States District
Courts. The Court of Federal Claims afforded Ms. Dominick, proceeding pro se,
opportunities to respond. Ms. Dominick did not respond to the motion to dismiss,
instead asking for an opportunity to meet with the court. The court granted the motion
to dismiss.
II
We review the dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction without deference to the
trial court. Sacco v. United States, 452 F.3d 1305, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The
jurisdiction of the United States District Courts over employment race discrimination
cases "create[s] an exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the
redress of federal employment discrimination." Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin. 425 U.S.
820, 829 (1976). Consequently, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to
entertain a suit alleging such discrimination. The Court of Federal Claims correctly
dismissed Ms. Dominick's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and we therefore affirm its
final judgment.
COSTS
No costs.
2009-5133 2

-- 3 of 3 --