NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ANNEPHIA M. PROCTOR,

Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA,

Respondent

______________________

2024-1906

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-20-0416-I-2.

______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the decision to remove Annephia M. Proctor from federal employment. She petitioned this court for review, and her 

Statement Concerning Discrimination states that she 

raised discrimination claims before the Board, does not 

wish to abandon those claims, and has filed an action in

federal district court from the Board’s decision. ECF No. 3. 

Responding to this court’s show cause order, the United 

Case: 24-1906 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2024
2 PROCTOR v. UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA

States Agency for Global Media urges transfer. Ms. Proctor

responds and asks this court to retain jurisdiction. 

We transfer this case. Federal district courts, not this 

court, have jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(2), which involve an allegation of an action appealable to the Board and an allegation that a basis for the 

action was covered discrimination, including retaliation. 

Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017); 

Diggs v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 670 F.3d 1353, 1357 

(Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the affirmative defense of retaliation for prior equal employment opportunity activity 

“falls outside [of the court’s] jurisdictional reach”). Here, 

Ms. Proctor continues to pursue the allegations she made 

before the Board that her removal was the result of covered 

discrimination, so jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision lies in district court, not in this court. 

Ms. Proctor states that she “has no intentions of raising 

discrimination claims in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” But she has not abandoned 

those claims; in fact, Ms. Proctor is actively litigating them

in her district court proceedings. See Proctor v. U.S. 

Agency for Glob. Media, No. 1:24-cf-01635-RC (D.D.C., filed 

May 9, 2024). Our cases are clear that she cannot pursue 

her claims in both this court and district court: “Congress 

did not direct or contemplate bifurcated review of” the personnel action and discrimination claim(s) raised before the 

Board, Williams v. Dep’t of the Army, 715 F.2d 1485, 1490 

(Fed. Cir. 1983); see Punch v. Bridenstine, 945 F.3d 322, 

330 (5th Cir. 2019) (“When federal employees have discrimination and non-discrimination claims arising from ‘the 

same or related facts,’ every court of appeals to consider the 

question has prohibited bifurcation.”).

For these reasons, we agree that this case belongs in 

district court and that transfer to the United States 

Case: 24-1906 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2024
PROCTOR v. UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA 3

District Court for the District of Columbia is appropriate 

under the circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

This matter and all case filings are transferred to the 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

September 16, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-1906 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 09/16/2024