*1 parties, why among coordinated re- not unsealed. The opinion should be which sponse specify must this order redacted, words, any, to be proposed if are EQUIPMENT state cause specifically must RAIL GEORGETOWN par- If the requested such redaction. COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee each redactions, response to propose ties v. specific words propose must also order L.P., Defendant-Appellant HOLLAND redactions proposed each of replace response opinion. joint in an unsealed 2016-2297 15, August no later than shall be filed Appeals, Court United States Federal Circuit. August Herberholz, Attorney, M. Christo-

Dana Cuneo, Attorney, K.

pher Jamie Senior Ellsworth, Attorney, Esq., Parsons Behle HENLEY, F. Petitioner Paul Boise, ID, Latimer, Speirs, Kevin & C. Latimer, City, Behle & Lake Parsons Salt

UT, Plaintiff-Appellee MERIT PROTECTION SYSTEMS Schwartz, Kathryn Ann Feier- J. Daniel BOARD, Respondent eisel, LLP, Chicago, Faegre Baker Daniels IL, Frank, Attorney, Timothy Lauren J. Grimsrud, Faegre Attorney, Baker

E. of Appeals, Court United States MN, LLP, for Defen- Minneapolis, Daniels Federal Circuit. dant-Appellant August Decided: Schall, Wallach, Reyna,

Before Judges.

Circuit

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Block Jenner & Lyerla, Peter Bradford LLP, IL, Chicago, petitioner. in this case contains Because the record Smith, Office of the Michelle Katherine confidential, marked as material extensive Counsel, Protec- General Au- its court has issued dated DC, Board, Washington, argued for gust The court not 2017 under seal. does Bryan G. respondent. represented by Also however, believe, that the contains POLISUK. confidential material. Prost, Judge, Mayer Chief hereby Before are ordered to show Moore, Judges. cause, single joint response Circuit by means

811 Per Curiam. of Perry lution System Protection — Board, —, U.S. 137 S.Ct. 198 (2017), L.Ed.2d 527 on the basis that his

ORDER appeal presents a mixed case.1 The Court Henley petition Petitioner Paul F. filed has case, since decided that holding that panel rehearing. proper the forum for cases lies in mixed court, district not the Federal Circuit. Id. It Is Ordered That: light In of holding, this Henley Mr. now (1) petition panel The rehearing is waives his discrimination so claims that we granted part in applicable to correct the may jurisdiction retain over his remaining legal governing appeal. standard this Resp. claims. to Suppl. Authority, ECF No. 41. accept waiver, We Mr. Henley’s lift (2) previous appeal in this requested stay, his and review the remain- 19, 2017, July issued is withdrawn and ing aspects of his appeal. replaced with the accompa- revised nying this order. Whether the jurisdiction board had to

adjudicate a is a question law, case of which we review novo. de Forest v. Merit ON FOR PETITION PANEL Bd., Sys. (Fed. Prot. 47 F.3d 410 Cir. REHEARING 1995). actions, We must set aside agency or findings, “(1) conclusions we find arbi trary, capricious, discretion, an abuse of or Henley Paul F. seeks review the Mer- law; (2) otherwise not in accordance with (“Board”) it Protection Board’s procedures required obtained without by dismissing decision appeal his for lack of law, rule, or having been fol regulation jurisdiction. affirm. We lowed; (3) unsupported or by substantial 7703(c). § Mr. Henley as a served teacher the “A evidence.” U.S.C. decision U.S. Forest Corps (“agency”) resign presumed Service Job to or retire is to be volun from March 2008 through May tary, an employee After and who voluntarily re receiving perceived what he tires no to right appeal as mistreat- has to the Board through reviews, ment performance employee unfair ... the that [unless] shows his harassment, resignation physical verbal or involuntary and and retirement was threats, Henley resigned Serv., Mr. ....” post. his He Staats Postal v. U.S. F.3d sought (Fed. 1996). Equal relief the through Employ- Cir. In its final order, ment Opportunity (“EEOC”), Commission the Board concluded that Mr. Hen arguing subjected ley to agency resignation that him to failed establish that his 5-11, various acts involuntary. Although discrimination and was retalia- J.A. tion. The government EEOC his claim ap denied that concedes Board affirmed, Board holding resigna- plied that his wrong reaching standard in voluntary. conclusion, After presenting oral argues was it that it was harmless Mr, argument, to Henley stay moved his Appellee’s error. agree. Br. 10. We We appeal pending the Supreme Court’s reso- have parties’ reviewed the record race, 1. A employee mixed case involves gender, age, "a federal on disability, based or in complains [who] of a serious adverse employ- violation of federal antidiscrimination laws.” .,. against ment action taken him attrib- Id. at 1979. action, part, utes the in in bias whole or Henley AFFIRMED that Mr. conclude arguments and allegations forth nonfrivolous set failed Costs true, that, establish taken as would when their own costs. shall bear involuntary. Ac resignation was that his *3 Board’s affirm the dismissal cordingly, we jurisdic appeal for lack of Henley’s

of Mr.

tion.