Skip to main content

Gerald K. Kandel v. United States

Fed. Cl.July 31, 2017No. 06-872Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Patricia E. Campbell-Smith
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
Circuit
Federal Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

Court partially granted and partially denied the government's motion to dismiss claims by former Panama Canal Commission employees seeking supplemental lump-sum payments for accrued annual leave under 5 U.S.C. § 5551.

Excerpt

REPORTED OPINION granting in part, as to former PCC employees who separated from employment prior to September 23, 1996 and denying in part, as to former PCC employees who separated from employment on or after September 23, 1996, Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). The parties are directed to file a joint status report, on or before 8/31/2017, proposing a schedule to govern this case going forward as to the claims of former employees who separated from PCC employment on or after September 23, 1996.. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith.

What This Ruling Means

# Kandel v. United States: Wage Theft Claim Partially Dismissed ## What Happened Gerald Kandel and other former employees of the Panama Canal Commission sued the U.S. government for wage theft—claiming they were not paid fairly for their work. The government asked the court to throw out the entire case. ## What the Court Decided The court partially agreed with the government. It dismissed claims from employees who left their jobs before September 23, 1996, saying the court didn't have legal authority to hear those cases due to a treaty agreement. However, the court allowed claims from employees who left on or after September 23, 1996 to move forward. The case was ordered to continue for these remaining employees. ## Why This Matters for Workers This ruling shows that when workers file wage theft claims, the timing of their employment can affect whether courts can hear their case. Federal workers covered by treaties or special agreements may face barriers to seeking justice for unpaid wages. The case demonstrates that even partial dismissals allow some workers to pursue their claims, though getting paid can require navigating complex legal rules.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.