Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
137 S. Ct. 1975
| SCOTUS | 2017Background
- Anthony Perry settled with the U.S. Census Bureau: 30-day suspension and early retirement; the settlement included a release of discrimination claims.
- After retirement, Perry appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), alleging race, age, disability discrimination and retaliation, and asserting the settlement was coerced.
- An MSPB ALJ found Perry failed to prove coercion and treated his retirement as voluntary, concluding the Board lacked jurisdiction because voluntary separations are not appealable.
- The MSPB affirmed and instructed Perry he could seek review in the Federal Circuit; Perry instead filed in the D.C. Circuit, which transferred the case to the Federal Circuit following precedent.
- The question presented: when the MSPB dismisses a mixed case for lack of jurisdiction, must judicial review be sought in the Federal Circuit (per the Government) or in a federal district court (per Perry)?
Issues
| Issue | Perry's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for judicial review when MSPB dismisses a mixed case for lack of jurisdiction | District court has jurisdiction over mixed cases; a nonfrivolous allegation that the action is appealable to MSPB + alleges discrimination suffices to file in district court, so Perry need not split appeals | MSPB nonappeability rulings must be reviewed by the Federal Circuit; allowing district courts to review jurisdictional dismissals undermines uniformity and requires bifurcation | District court is the proper forum for review of mixed cases dismissed for lack of MSPB jurisdiction; mixed-case filings go to district court if the complaint alleges an MSPB-appealable action was taken due to discrimination |
| Effect of MSPB labeling a dismissal "jurisdictional" on forum choice | Labeling does not change forum: whether called jurisdictional or procedural, Kloeckner and statute point to district court for mixed cases | A jurisdictional dismissal means the case is not a "mixed case" under §7702(a)(1) and thus belongs to the Federal Circuit | Court rejects Government’s merits/procedure vs. jurisdiction distinction; statutory scheme and precedent favor district-court review for mixed cases that allege discrimination |
| Whether a plaintiff must split claims (Federal Circuit for civil-service issues; district court for discrimination) | Splitting creates inefficiency and risks parallel litigation; integrated review in district court best serves CSRA objectives | Splitting preserves Federal Circuit’s uniform review of civil-service questions and adheres to statutory text directing most CSRA review there | Court favors avoiding bifurcation; integrated district-court review in mixed cases serves CSRA’s integrated-review purpose |
| Reliance on nonfrivolous pleadings to establish forum | A nonfrivolous assertion that the action was appealable to the MSPB suffices to characterize a mixed case and invoke district-court jurisdiction | The actual MSPB determination that the action is nonappealable removes the case from §7702(a)(1) and thus from §7703(b)(2)’s district-court route | Court applies the principle that nonfrivolous allegations determine initial jurisdiction; thus Perry’s pleadings made it a mixed case for district-court review |
Key Cases Cited
- Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (2012) (held mixed-case appeals alleging an MSPB-appealable action taken due to discrimination should be filed in district court; extended to procedural dismissals)
- Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012) (emphasized the CSRA’s goal of an integrated review scheme and warned against fragmented litigation)
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (recognized the CSRA as a comprehensive, integrated review scheme for civil-service disputes)
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (nonfrivolous jurisdictional allegations suffice to establish jurisdiction at the outset)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (to invoke federal-question jurisdiction, claims must be more than insubstantial or frivolous)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (discussed characterization of timeliness as jurisdictional versus procedural)
- Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386 (1987) (release is an affirmative defense in civil litigation)