In Doe v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 798 , 802 (2005), aff'd, 463 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1321 (2007), the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of a judgment mandated by the Federal Circuit following a reversal of the courts summary judgment decision. In their motion for reconsideration, the plaintiffs reasserted their claim for holiday pay arguing that the issue had not been addressed on appeal. The plaintiffs further asserted that the outcome of the appeal created a change in the law that permitted the reopening of their claim for overtime pay, yet another type of premium pay. The court in Doe denied plaintiffs motion stating that the law of the case doctrine precluded further consideration of plaintiffs alternative arguments as to overtime pay, and that the Federal Circuits ruling on interlocutory appeal controlled - by necessary implication - plaintiffs claim to holiday pay. Id. The court also cursorily mentioned the need for scheduling to trigger Sunday premium pay. Id. at 801-02. Without construing the language of the Sunday premium pay statute, the court reached its conclusion in part based on the fact that plaintiffs had made no claim that they were scheduled to work either on Sundays or on holidays. Thus, the court determined that plaintiffs claim to premium pay in general - based on knowledge, encouragement, and inducement - was precluded by the law of the case doctrine. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding that plaintiffs were foreclosed from raising alternative arguments for overtime or holiday pay without addressing the scheduling requirements of the Sunday premium pay statute. Doe, 463 F.3d at 1314.