Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01569/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01569-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Respondent
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Tanya Jarvis Pickron
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

TANYA JARVIS PICKRON,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________

2024-1569

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-3443-23-0418-I-1.

______________________

Decided: December 3, 2024

______________________

TANYA JARVIS PICKRON, Houston, TX, pro se. 

 CONSTANCE E. TRAVANTY, Office of the General 

Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

ALLISON JANE BOYLE, KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH. 

 ______________________

Before PROST, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Case: 24-1569 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 12/03/2024
2 JARVIS PICKRON v. MSPB

Tanya Jarvis appeals an order of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (“MSPB”) dismissing her appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction. Jarvis v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. DA3443-23-0418-I-1, S.A. 1–131 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 8, 2023) 

(“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Jarvis was employed as a Supervisory Medical 

Supply Technician at the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(“VA”) Houston Healthcare System. S.A. 65. As part of 

this position, she would sometimes work on-call shifts. 

Employees on the on-call shift “provide[d] coverage during 

both regular duty hours and after hours, weekends and 

holidays” to maintain coverage for direct care to patients. 

S.A. 57. During the scheduled on-call duty, the VA told 

Ms. Jarvis that she would “receive ten percent of [her] 

applicable overtime rate for any scheduled on-call duty” 

per the rate set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7457. S.A. 63. The 

VA later suspended Ms. Jarvis’s on-call duty and pay.

Ms. Jarvis filed an appeal before the MSPB 

challenging the removal of her on-call pay. She alleged 

that her on-call pay was improperly cancelled, that the 

reasons for cancelling her on-call pay were discriminatory, 

and that she was entitled to back pay from 2010 to 2018. 

S.A. 39. The Administrative Judge (“AJ”) noted a 

probable lack of jurisdiction and ordered Ms. Jarvis to file 

supplemental evidence and argument establishing that 

the MSPB had jurisdiction over her appeal. S.A. 42–50. 

After receiving Ms. Jarvis’s response, the AJ dismissed 

her appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that “an 

agency’s termination, reduction [of,] or refusal to grant 

premium pay does not constitute a reduction in pay action 

appealable to the [MSPB].” Decision, at S.A. 3. The AJ 

1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix 

submitted with the government’s informal brief.

Case: 24-1569 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 12/03/2024
JARVIS PICKRON v. MSPB 3

also did not consider Ms. Jarvis’s discrimination claim 

due to the lack of an appealable action. Decision, at 

S.A. 4.

Ms. Jarvis did not file a petition for review to the full 

MSPB, so the AJ’s decision became final. Ms. Jarvis

timely appealed to this court.

DISCUSSION

We must assure ourselves of our appellate jurisdiction 

in every case. Telcomm Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Siemens 

Rolm Commc’ns, Inc., 295 F.3d 1249, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). Typically, the determination of jurisdiction 

precedes our examination of the merits. See Sinochem 

Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 

431 (2007). This case, however, presents an odd situation:

whether we have appellate jurisdiction and whether the 

MSPB properly dismissed Ms. Jarvis’s appeal turn on the 

same question. We thus address both questions together.

We review the MSPB’s jurisdictional determinations 

de novo. Palmer v. MSPB, 550 F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 

2008). Factual findings underlying the MSPB’s 

jurisdictional determinations are reviewed for substantial 

evidence. Bledsoe v. MSPB, 659 F.3d 1097, 1101 (Fed. Cir. 

2011).

We have appellate jurisdiction over “an appeal from a 

final order or final decision of the [MSPB], pursuant to 

sections 7703(b)(1) and 7703(d) of title 5.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9). “Section 7703(b)(1) gives the basic rule: 

‘Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a 

petition to review a . . . final decision of the [MSPB] shall 

be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit.’” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 45 

(2012) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)). An exception 

exists, however, for “[c]ases of discrimination subject to 

the provisions of section 7702” of title 5. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(2). Those cases are ones where the employee 

Case: 24-1569 Document: 30 Page: 3 Filed: 12/03/2024
4 JARVIS PICKRON v. MSPB

“has been affected by an action which the employee or 

applicant may appeal to the [MSPB],” id. § 7702(a)(1)(A), 

and “alleges that a basis for the action was discrimination 

prohibited by” various other federal laws, id.

§ 7702(a)(1)(B). Cases alleging both an appealable action 

and discrimination are called mixed cases. Kloeckner, 568 

U.S. at 44–45. Judicial review in mixed cases must be 

sought through a lawsuit in federal district court, not by 

appeal to the Federal Circuit. Perry v. MSPB, 582 U.S. 

420, 430–31 (2017). But “[s]ome adverse personnel 

actions may not be appealed to the [MSPB] and therefore 

do not create mixed cases.” Ash v. OPM, 25 F.4th 1009, 

1011 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Determining whether a given case

is a mixed case, and thus whether we have jurisdiction, 

requires determining whether the employee alleges an 

adverse action that can be appealed to the MSPB.

Jurisdiction to appeal to the MSPB exists, as relevant 

here, for “[a]n employee against whom an action is taken.” 

5 U.S.C. § 7513(d). Some appealable actions are listed in 

§ 7512. If an adverse action in § 7512 is taken against an 

employee, she “is entitled to appeal to the [MSPB] under 

section 7701 of this title”—one of the prerequisites for us 

to exercise appellate jurisdiction in this case. Id.

§ 7513(d). The inquiry, then, into whether we have 

appellate jurisdiction and into whether the AJ correctly 

concluded that Ms. Jarvis did not make a non-frivolous 

allegation of MSPB jurisdiction requires answering the 

same question: Did Ms. Jarvis allege an action 

appealable to the MSPB?

Ms. Jarvis alleges that she experienced an appealable 

“reduction in pay” when her on-call pay was reduced. Id.

§ 7512(4). Pay, as used in this provision, is “the rate of 

basic pay fixed by law or administrative action for the 

position held by an employee.” Id. § 7511(a)(4) (emphasis 

added). Thus, not all kinds of pay reductions are 

appealable to the MSPB—only reductions in “basic pay.” 

Case: 24-1569 Document: 30 Page: 4 Filed: 12/03/2024
JARVIS PICKRON v. MSPB 5

We have held that “a reduction in premium pay” is not 

a reduction in basic pay. Nigg v. MSPB, 321 F.3d 1381, 

1385 (Fed. Cir. 2003). On-call pay is one of these kinds of 

premium pay. At the VA, on-call pay is set at 10 percent 

of the hourly rate for excess service provided. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7453(h); see also id. § 7457(a). Two statutory 

subsections even refer to on-call pay as “premium pay.” 

Id. § 7457(b)(2), (c)(2). Thus, a reduction in on-call pay 

does not count as a “reduction in pay” under § 7511(a)(4)

because on-call pay is not basic pay. Cf. Athey v. United 

States, 908 F.3d 696, 707 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that 

on-call pay under § 7543 is not “additional pay” under the 

Lump Sum Pay Act). We thus must conclude that Ms. 

Jarvis cannot appeal her reduction in on-call pay to the 

MSPB.

Since reduction in on-call pay is not appealable to the 

MSPB, we affirm the AJ’s determination that the MSPB

lacks jurisdiction over Ms. Jarvis’s appeal. See Nigg, 321 

F.3d at 1384.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Ms. Jarvis’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, 

we affirm the MSPB’s determination that it lacked 

jurisdiction over Ms. Jarvis’s claims.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1569 Document: 30 Page: 5 Filed: 12/03/2024