NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-3010 

CHARLES R. MCCOY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

Respondent. 

Charles R. McCoy, of Allen, Texas, pro se. 

Joseph E. Ashman, Steven J. Abelson, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for 

respondent. With him on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Bryant G. 

Snee, Deputy Director. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-3010 

CHARLES R. MCCOY, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

 Respondent. 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in DA-0752-07-0263-B-1. 

 __________________________ 

DECIDED: February 9, 2009 

 __________________________ 

Before LINN, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Charles R. McCoy (“McCoy”) seeks review of a final decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“Board”), which affirmed his removal from the United States 

Postal Service (“the agency”). McCoy v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. DA-0752-07-0263-B-1 

(M.S.P.B. June 16, 2008) (“Decision”), review denied, McCoy v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 

DA-0752-07-0263-B-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 18, 2008). Because we lack jurisdiction to 

review McCoy’s petition, we dismiss. 

 McCoy was removed from his position as a maintenance custodian with the 

agency following an altercation in which he allegedly threatened the life of his 

supervisor. McCoy filed a grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement 

between his union and the agency. The grievance was eventually appealed to 
arbitration. After a hearing, during which McCoy was represented by a union official, 

the arbitrator issued a decision, concluding that the agency’s Notice of Proposed 

Removal was issued for just cause. McCoy subsequently filed an appeal with the 

Board, challenging the agency’s removal action and for the first time alleging that his 

removal resulted from unlawful racial discrimination. Specifically, McCoy alleged that 

he was disciplined disparately from similarly situated white employees under the 

agency’s “zero tolerance” policy toward violence in the workplace. Following Board 

proceedings unrelated to the instant appeal, the administrative judge concluded that the 

doctrine of collateral estoppel barred McCoy’s attempt to relitigate the agency’s removal 

action, Decision at 16-17, and that McCoy failed to prove his affirmative defense of 

racial discrimination, id. at 20. The full Board denied review, and McCoy timely 

appealed to this court. 

 “In Williams v. Department of the Army, 715 F.2d 1485 (Fed. Cir. 1983), this 

court held that it had no jurisdiction over the merits of a mixed case, i.e., one involving 

an adverse action and a claim of discrimination. However, a case which was presented 

to the [Board] as a mixed case will be heard by this court if the petitioner files an explicit 

waiver of the claim of discrimination.” Davidson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223, 223-

24 (Fed. Cir. 1994). McCoy purported to file such a waiver in this case, checking the 

box on his Statement Concerning Discrimination pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 15(c) indicating that “[n]o claim of discrimination by reason of race, 

sex, age, national origin, or handicapped condition has been or will be made in this 

case.” Notwithstanding McCoy’s notation of waiver, the sole issue raised in his petition 

is the Board’s decision with respect to his claim of racial discrimination. See Pet’r’s 

2009-3010 2 
2009-3010 3 

Informal Br. at 1 (challenging “disparity of treatment”). Because McCoy has not 

presented any arguments that are divorced from his discrimination claim, we lack 

jurisdiction to review his petition. As a result, we must dismiss. 

COSTS 

No costs.