Jonson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
877 F.3d 52
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Paul D. Jonson, a long‑time FDIC employee, was terminated in 2013 for failing to meet FDIC "minimum standards of fitness and integrity." He had disclosed a prior bankruptcy during a background check.
- Jonson filed an MSPB appeal alleging (1) the FDIC lacked authority for the regulation used to terminate him, (2) violation of the Bankruptcy Code anti‑discrimination provision, and (3) associational disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.
- An ALJ initially ruled for Jonson on the procedural ground that the FDIC failed to obtain OGE concurrence; the MSPB reversed that and directed the ALJ to allow Jonson to pursue his discrimination claims.
- Jonson’s counsel withdrew his discrimination claims with prejudice to facilitate immediate reinstatement; the MSPB later reopened the case and ordered Jonson be allowed to re‑assert the claims, but Jonson failed to prosecute them and was sanctioned by the ALJ.
- While the MSPB appeal was pending, Jonson filed a section 7702(e) action in bankruptcy (later withdrawn to district court). After the MSPB issued a final order affirming termination, the district court dismissed Jonson’s district‑court action for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction because the case was no longer a "mixed case." Jonson sought transfer to the Federal Circuit; the district court denied relief. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jonson’s suit in district court qualifies as a "mixed case" (i.e., jurisdiction exists under 5 U.S.C. § 7702) despite his earlier withdrawal of discrimination claims at the MSPB | Jonson contends he preserved a mixed‑case discrimination claim and the district court therefore had jurisdiction under § 7702(e)(1)(B) | FDIC contends Jonson waived/abandoned his discrimination claim at the MSPB and thus no mixed case exists for district‑court jurisdiction | Court held Jonson waived his Rehabilitation Act claim by withdrawing it and failing to reinstate or prosecute it before the MSPB; no mixed case exists, so district court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court should have transferred the case to the Federal Circuit | Jonson argued transfer was in the interest of justice (counsel mistakenly invoked § 1404 but sought transfer to cure forum error) | FDIC argued transfer would not cure the lack of jurisdiction because the Federal Circuit lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over the filing Jonson made | Court held transfer inappropriate and would not cure the jurisdictional defect; Jonson waived any § 1631 argument by not raising it below |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (establishes CSRA as comprehensive scheme for federal employment review)
- Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (describes MSPB/CSRA review paths and when district courts hear mixed cases)
- McAdams v. Reno, 64 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir.) (abandonment of discrimination claims before MSPB defeats district court jurisdiction)
- Hill v. Dep't of Air Force, 796 F.2d 1469 (Fed. Cir.) (Congress did not intend mere mention of discrimination to manipulate jurisdiction)
- Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., 137 S. Ct. 553 (transfer cannot cure lack of jurisdiction by transferring to a court that also lacks jurisdiction)
- Gonzalez v. Velez, 864 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (exhaustion requirement bars district‑court mixed‑case jurisdiction when administrative remedies not pursued)