was paid less than one of her male coworkers, Mr. Maniscalco, even though they perform exactly the same work. She was denied the same cash award that two of her male coworkers received for performance because of her gender. Finally, she was excluded from a Voice of America detail because of her gender, although she was qualified for participation. Plaintiff requests relief in the form of: (1) full back pay and equal pay; (2) promotion to the position to which she is entitled; (8) a ban on retaliatory conduct; (4) an award of atto ed in the complaint are disputed, “the ... court may consider relevant evidence in order to resolve the factual dispute.” Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 747 (Fed.Cir.1988); Moyer v. United States, 190 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Once the court’s subject matter jurisdiction
holding that fjactfmding is proper when considering a motion to dismiss where the jurisdictional facts in the complaint  are challenged holding that the court can look beyond the face of the pleadings in order to find predicate jurisdictional facts when deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion holding that by considering matters outside of the pleadings the trial court converted a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion