Murray v. District of Columbia Dep't of Youth and Rehabilitation Services

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 23-CV-0082
• Status: Published

Opinion

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 23-CV-0082

SAMUEL MURRAY, APPELLANT,

V.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH REHABILITATION SERVICES, et al., APPELLEES.

Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2022-CA-001505-P(MPA))

(Hon. Shana F. Matini, Trial Judge)

(Submitted September 25, 2024 Decided February 13, 2025)

Samuel Murray, pro se.

Brian L. Schwalb, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, with whom Caroline S. Van Zile, Solicitor General, Ashwin P. Phatak, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Graham E. Phillips, Deputy Solicitor General, and Alex Fumelli, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief, for appellee District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services.

Lasheka Brown filed a statement in lieu of brief for appellee District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals.

Before EASTERLY, MCLEESE, and SHANKER, Associate Judges. 2

MCLEESE, Associate Judge: Appellant Samuel Murray was awarded back-pay

after it was determined that appellee the District of Columbia Department of Youth

Rehabilitation Services (“DYRS”) had wrongfully terminated Mr. Murray’s

employment. In this appeal, Mr. Murray argues that he was entitled to interest on

the award of back-pay. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court denying

Mr. Murray’s claim for interest.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Except as noted, the following appears to be undisputed for present purposes.

Mr. Murray was injured in the course of his employment as a motor-vehicle operator

for DYRS. As a result, he left work in 2010. Mr. Murray returned to work briefly

in 2012, but again took leave. DYRS informed Mr. Murray that he was required to

return to work and then terminated his employment when he failed to do so.

Mr. Murray contested his termination, which was determined to have been

wrongful. In September 2020, DYRS was ordered to reinstate Mr. Murray and he

was awarded back-pay with benefits. Up to that point, it does not appear that

Mr. Murray asked to be awarded interest on the back-pay award.

In February 2021, Mr. Murray filed a petition with the Office of Employee

Appeals (“OEA”) to reopen his case, seeking enforcement of the award of back-pay

and benefits, which had not yet been provided. Mr. Murray also, apparently for the 3

first time, sought “accrued interest on the back[-]pay.” Mr. Murray eventually

received his back-pay and benefits, so the issue narrowed to whether Mr. Murray

was entitled to interest on the back-pay award.

In response to Mr. Murray’s request for interest, DYRS argued (1) that the

request was untimely (citing Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (1989)

(post-judgment motion for prejudgment interest is motion to amend or alter

judgment)); and (2) in any event, OEA lacks authority to grant interest on back-pay

awards.

The OEA Administrative Judge (“AJ”) who ruled on Mr. Murray’s petition

did not specifically address the issue of timeliness, other than to list various

distinctions between the circumstances of Osterneck (a civil case involving a jury

trial) and the present case (an administrative matter where the facts were not

contested). The AJ further concluded that OEA had authority to award interest on

back-pay awards and therefore ordered DYRS to pay Mr. Murray prejudgment

interest.

DYRS sought review of the AJ’s award of interest in the Superior Court,

which reversed the award on the ground that the AJ did not have jurisdiction to grant

interest on the back-pay award. The trial court reasoned as follows. After an award

has been issued, an AJ “retain[s] jurisdiction over the case only to the extent 4

necessary to correct the record, rule on a motion for attorney fees, or process any

petition for enforcement filed under the authority of [OEA].” D.C. Code

§ l-606.03(c). The decision granting Mr. Murray back-pay became a final order in

October 2020, and although Mr. Murray properly sought enforcement of the order

when he was not paid, that issue became moot upon receipt of back-pay in March

2021. Mr. Murray’s request for prejudgment interest, made over three months after

the back-pay award became final, fell outside the limited authority granted to AJs

under Section l-606.03(c).

II. Analysis

Our review of administrative appeals that “come[] to us from the Superior

Court . . . is precisely the same as in administrative appeals that come to us directly.”

Johnson v. D.C. Off. of Emp. Appeals, 912 A.2d 1181, 1183 (D.C. 2006) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Although we generally review questions of law de novo,

Dupree v. D.C. Off. of Emp. Appeals, 36 A.3d 826, 831 (D.C. 2011), “[w]e ordinarily

defer to OEA’s reasonable interpretation of statutes under which OEA acts,” Butler

v. Metro. Police Dep’t, 240 A.3d 829, 835 (D.C. 2020) (brackets and internal

quotation marks omitted). We hold that Section l-606.03(c) clearly precluded

Mr. Murray’s belated request for prejudgment interest. 5

As previously noted, Mr. Murray did not originally seek prejudgment interest,

and the back-pay award did not include prejudgment interest. When Mr. Murray

later sought prejudgment interest, over three months after the back-pay award was

final, he was in substance asking the AJ to amend the back-pay award. Cf., e.g.,

Osterneck, 489 U.S. at 174-78 (post-judgment motion for prejudgment interest is

motion to amend or alter judgment, because prejudgment interest has traditionally

been understood as part of compensation due to plaintiff). Moreover, the request for

prejudgment interest plainly does not fall within Section § l-606.03(c)’s list of

matters as to which AJs retain jurisdiction after an award has issued: correction of

the record, attorney’s fees, and enforcement of an award.

We therefore agree with the Superior Court that the AJ lacked jurisdiction to

award prejudgment interest. We are not persuaded by Mr. Murray’s arguments to

the contrary. First, Mr. Murray argues that his request for prejudgment interest can

be viewed as an effort to enforce the back-pay award. We disagree. Whether to

award prejudgment interest is a question about the amount of the award to which

Mr. Murray was entitled, not a question about how to enforce an award that did not

include prejudgment interest. Osterneck, 489 U.S. at 174-78.

Second, Mr. Murray argues that some procedural rules regarding timeliness

are treated as discretionary rather than mandatory and jurisdictional. 6

Section l-606.03(c), however, is expressly worded as a limitation of the jurisdiction

of AJs. D.C. Code § 1-606.03(c) (AJ “retain[s] jurisdiction over the case only to the

extent necessary to correct the record, rule on a motion for attorney fees, or process

any petition for enforcement filed under the authority of [OEA]”) (emphasis added).

We note two remaining points. First, in light of our ruling we do not have

occasion to address the broader question whether OEA has the authority to award

prejudgment interest on back-pay awards when such interest is timely requested. We

express no view on that question. Second, one could potentially view post-judgment

interest as part of the enforcement of an award that was not timely paid. Mr. Murray

has not developed an argument along those lines, and neither the AJ nor the Superior

Court considered that issue. We therefore decline to address that issue. See

generally, e.g., Battle v. District of Columbia, 80 A.3d 1036, 1040 n.5 (D.C. 2013)

(“[T]his court generally does not consider questions not properly raised and briefed

on appeal.”). We thus express no view about whether an OEA AJ would have

jurisdiction to award post-judgment interest as part of an order enforcing an award

that was not promptly paid.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Superior Court is

Affirmed.