Fedora v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 848 F.3d 1013

Laurence Fedora retired from USPS on August 31, 2012 and appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) alleging involuntary/constructive retirement and related mistreatment.
An administrative judge dismissed the MSPB appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the Board affirmed on August 15, 2014.
The Board’s final order stated petitioners have 60 days to seek review in the Federal Circuit and specified the 60-day period begins on the date the Board issues its order.
Fedora received the Board’s decision August 19, 2014 and mailed his petition to this court on October 11, 2014; the court did not receive it until October 20, 2014.
The Federal Circuit majority held the court lacks jurisdiction because Fedora’s petition was not received within 60 days of issuance (deadline: October 14, 2014).
Judge Plager dissented, arguing recent Supreme Court precedent calls into question treating §7703(b)(1)(A)’s deadline as jurisdictional and urging rebriefing and en banc consideration on equitable tolling and whether the Irwin presumption is rebutted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 60‑day filing requirement in 5 U.S.C. §7703(b)(1)(A) is jurisdictional	Fedora contends the court should permit equitable relief because he relied on erroneous filing guidance and mailing delays	Government argues the statutory 60‑day appeal period (measured from date of Board issuance) is mandatory and jurisdictional, precluding tolling	Held: The court followed precedent treating the appeal period as jurisdictional; petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (file not received within 60 days of issuance)
Whether equitable tolling or reliance on incorrect court/agency guidance excuses late receipt	Fedora argues reliance on the Court’s pro se guide and mailing delay justify relief	Government asserts equitable tolling does not apply to this jurisdictional deadline and filing requires actual receipt	Held: Equitable tolling is not available for this appeal-period jurisdictional deadline; mailing within the period but late receipt is irrelevant to filing date

Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 735 F.2d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding §7703 filing deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional)
Oja v. Dep’t of the Army, 405 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reaffirming §7703(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (appeal-period time limits are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010) (context matters in determining whether statutory conditions are jurisdictional)
Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (appeal deadlines to Article III courts are more likely jurisdictional; administrative-review contexts may differ)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (most time bars are nonjurisdictional absent clear congressional intent; Government bears a high burden to show otherwise)
Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (presumption that suits against the United States are subject to equitable tolling absent contrary congressional intent)
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (distinguishing true jurisdictional limits from claim‑processing rules)
Pinat v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (filing requires actual receipt by the court)