FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 83 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 07 61 -MHT-WC BUTLER B. BROWDE R, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us POSTMASTER GENERAL, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 22 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, HULL andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Bu tl er E. Bro wde r, pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s di sm is sa l o f hi s co m

pl ai ntforlac k o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Bro wde r, a 3 7- y ear e m

pl oyee of th e U.S. Po st al Serv ic e, su edth e Po st m as te r Gen eral (1) all eg in g ra ce d is cri m in at io n andret al ia ti on invi ol at io n o f Tit le VII of

th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 (“ Tit le VII”), 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e to 20 00 e-1 7, an d (2 ) se ek in g e nf or cem en t o f Bro wde r’s 20 06 set tl em en t ag reem en t with the Po st al Serv ic e th atres ol ve d h is earl ie r em pl oym en t-d is cri m in at io n cl ai m s. Th e U.S. Meri t Syste m s Pr ot ect io n B oa rd(“ MSP B”) c on cl ud edth atth e Po st al Serv ic e d idno t b reac h the 20 06 set tl em en t ag reem en t an d d en ie d Bro wde r’s pe ti ti on to en fo rce the ag reem en t. Bro wde r th enfil edth is co m pl ai nt al le gi ng th atth e Po st al Serv ic e b reac he d the set tl em en t ag reem en t an d tha t, as a
res ul t, h e is en ti tl edto pu rs ue hi s u nd erl y in g e m pl oym en t-d is cri m in at io n c la im s. Afte r rev ie w, we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d thi s ac ti on for la ckof s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on .

I. PROCEDURAL BACKG ROUND A. 20 06 Settl ement Agre ement Inlat e 2 00 5 o r ear ly 200 6, Br owd er co m pl ai ne d o f rac e-d is cri m in at io n i n hi s M on tg om ery, Alab am a m ai l fa ci li ty. In F eb ru ary 20 06 , th e Po st al Serv ic e fir edBro wde r ba se d o n c ert ai n m is co nduc t. Bro wde r th enfil edwith the Po st al
2Serv ic e anadm in is tra ti ve Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty com pl ai ntall eg in g ra cedi sc riminat io n andret al ia ti on . On Ju ly 31, 2 00 6, the Po st al Serv ic e fo un d n o di sc riminat io n o r ret al iati on with re sp ectto Bro wde r’s di sc ha rg e. On Au gu st21 , 20 06 , Bro wde r ap pe al edto th e MSP B. Whi le Bro wde r’s MSP B ap pe al was p en di ng , th e Nat io na l Po st al Mai l Han dl ers Uni on pu rs ue d aco nt ractua l g rie va nc e o n B ro wde r’s be ha lf. Th at gr ie va nc e was subm it te d t o arb itrat io n, an d i n No ve m be r 20 06 , th e arb itrat or
su st ai ne d B ro wde r’s di sc ha rg e . On Dec em

be r 4, 2 00 6, wh il e Bro wde r’s MSP B ap pe al was s ti ll pe nd in g, Bro wde r an d the Po st al Serv ic e se tt le d B ro wde r’s race -d is cri m in at io n and ret al ia ti on cla im s. Th e tape -rec or de d, v erb al ag reem en t p ro vi de d fo r Bro wde r’s rei ns tate m en t an d h is ret ire m en t u nd er s pe ci fie d c on di ti on s, an d fo r th e d is m is sa l of Bro wde r’s MSP B ap pe al an d a ll of h is othe r gr ie va nc es . The s et tl em en t ag reem en t al so pro vi de d tha t Br owd er wo ul d b e p erm it te d t o u se hi s ac cru edsi ck le av e b efo re h is ret ire m en t b ecame effect iv e an d tha t h is un us edan nu al lea ve
wou ldbe cred it edina cas h award . An adm in is tra ti ve law ju dg e (“ ALJ”) read al ou d the se term s i nt o the MSPB reco rd . The ALJ fo un d the set tl em en t ag reem en t
va li d anddi sm is se d B ro wde r’s MSP B ap pe al
.

3Late r th atsame day , Bro wde r at te m pt edto fil e a p le ad in g wi th th e ALJ t o
se t as id e th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t. Eig htday s l at er, Bro wde r fi le d ape ti ti on , 1 ch al le ng in g the va li di ty of th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t, b efo re the ful l b oa rdof t he MSP B. The f

ul l b oa rdof t he MSPB de ni edBro wde r’s pe ti ti on inMarc h 2 00 7. Bro wde r th enap pe al edth e MSP B’s ru li ng to th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Co m m is si on , whi chfou ndth atitlac ke d juris di ct io n t o re vi ew a s et tl em en t ag reem en t ex ecu te d b efo re the MSPB
. B. Bro w der’ s 2 00 7– 20 08 La w su it Pro ceed in g p ro se, B ro wde r su edth e Po stm as te r Gen eral inth e U.S. Dis tri ct Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a in Ju ne 20 07 . Bro wde r’s 20 07
co m pl ai ntall eg edret al ia to ry

di sc harg e an d ra ce-d is cri m in at io n, i n v io la ti on of Tit le VII. The Po st al Serv ic e m ov edto di sm is s, ar gu in g tha t the set tl em en t ag reem en t d ep riv edth e d is tri ctco urt o f juri sd ic ti on to he ar Br owd er’s cl ai m s. In
res po ns e, Bro wde r cl ai m edth atth e se tt le m en t ag reem en t was in va li d b ecau se it
was no t i n wri ti ng an d the Po st al Serv ic e co erce d h im in to acce pt in g i t. InMarc h 2 00 8, the di st ric t co urt ad op te d the m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d
reco m m en da ti on (“ th e rep ort” ) an d d is m is se d B ro wde r’s co m pl ai ntforlac k o f
subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Bro wde r v. Po tt er, No . 2: 07 -CV-5 46 -MEF, 2 00 8 WL
The re cord doe s not indicate what action, if any , the ALJ took on Brow der’ s filing. 1 482 21 32 , at * 5 (M .D. Ala. Mar . 26 , 20 08 ) (u np ub li sh ed ). The re po rt e xp la in edth at

th e d is tri ctco urt h as juri sd ic ti on to he ar a fe de ral em pl oyee’s Tit le VII cl ai m

on ly if t he em pl oyee ha s ex haus te d h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s ag ai ns t the fed eral
em pl oyer. Id. at*4 (ci ti ng Bro wn v . Gen. Se rv s. Adm in ., 42 5 U.S. 8 20 , 83 2, 9 6 S
. Ct . 19 61 , 19 67 (19 76 )). Bec au se Bro wde r se tt le d h is cla im s b efo re the MSPB
ru le d o n h is ap pe al , he f

ai le d t o e xh au sthi s adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. Id . at * 5. Alt ern at iv el y , th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d B ro wde r’s 20 07 co m pl ai nt be cau se th e MSP B d idno t re so lv e Bro wde r’s di sc riminat io n c la im s o n the m eri ts . Id . at * 6. Un de r 5 U.S.C . § 7 70 2 and§ 7 70 3, the di st ric t co urt h as li m it ed juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w MSPB rul in gs , bu t o nl y if the em pl oyee’s cla im

is ba se d i n who le or i n p artondi sc riminat io n (t erm eda “ m ix edcas e”) andth e MSP B res ol ve s th e “ mix edcas e” o n the m eri ts . Id. at*4 –5 ; s ee Ba ll en ti ne v. Me ritSy st em s Pro te ct io n B d., 7 38 F.2d12 44 , 12 46 (Fed . Cir . 19 84 ); s ee al so 29 C.F.R. § 1 61 4.3 02 (a) (d efi ni ng a “ m ix edcas e co m pl ai nt ” as a co m

pl ai ntof e m

pl oym en t di sc riminat io n “ rel at edto or s te m m in g fr om

anact io n tha t ca n b e ap pe al ed ” to th e MSP B). Gen eral ly spe ak in g, af te r pr oc eed in g t o the MSPB , a fed eral em pl oyee
m us t fi le any

furth er ap pe al with the Co urt o f App eal s fo r th e Fed eral Cir cu it . 5 U.S.C. § 7 70 3( b) (1 ). Due t o the set tl em en t ag reem en t, the MSPB ha d n ot ad dr es se d the m eri ts of B ro wde r’s di sc riminat io n c la im s. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ct
5co urt d is m is se d B ro wde r’s co m pl ai ntinMarc h 2 00 8. Lack in g s ub ject m atte r juri sd ic ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t re ach Bro wde r’s ch al le ng es to th e v al id ity of th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t. Bro wde r, 20 08 W L 82 21 32 at * 6 n .4. Bro wde r di d n ot ap pe al th is di sm is sa l. C. 20 09 Petit io n to Enfo rce In20 09 , bef

or e th e MSP B, Bro wde r fi le d ape ti ti onto en fo rce the 20 06
se tt le m en t ag reem en t en te redin to be fo re the MSPB . Bro wde r cl ai m edth atth e Po st al Serv ic e h adbre ach edth e se tt le m en t ag reem en t b y no t p erm itti ng Bro wde r to us e h is si ckleave pri orto ret iri ng an d b y no t cr ed it in g h is un us edan nu al lea ve ina cas h award . In Dec em be r 20 09 , th e ALJ d en ie d B ro wde r’s pe ti ti onon gr ou nd s tha t (1 ) th e Po st al Serv ic e h adno t b reac he d the ag reem en t, an d (2 ) Bro wde r’s vo lu nt ary act io ns m ad e th e Po st al Serv ic e’s co m pl ianc e im

po ss ib le
. 2
The Postal Service did not credit B rowde r’s a ccr ued annua l or sick leave , per the terms 2 of the settlement a gree ment. The ALJ explained that Brow der, be fore entering into the Dec ember

2006 settlement agree ment, had alr eady signe d the pape rwork to r etire a nd had chose n Marc h 6, 2006 as his eff

ective r etireme nt date, as f ollows: I t i s undisputed that, even prior to entering into the [settl ement] agree ment , o n October 24, 2006, [Browde r] completed the nece ssary paper work to retire
. I n as m u ch as [Browde r] was absent from work and not in a pay status for a l en gt h y p eriod of time, he backdated his retire ment d at e by designating Marc h 6, 2006, as the eff ective date of his retire ment. [Browde r] submitt ed the paper work to the [P ostal Service ] such that the [P ostal Service ] rec eived the paper work just four day s afte r the settlement agree ment. In response , the [P ostal Service] sent to [Browde r] a n “Ac knowledgment of Under standing ” that stated the retire ment date as Marc h 6, 2006. [Browde r] does not d i s pute that he both signe d the “Ac knowledgment of Understanding ” and place d his initials (B BB) next to the retirement date of Marc h 6, 2006. Be cause Br owder

himself made his re tirement ef fec tive as of Ma

rch 6, 2006, the Postal S ervic e 6The ful l b oa rdof t he MSPB de ni edBro wde r’s pe ti ti on forrev ie w of the ALJ’s

de ci si on . D. This 20 10 La w su it InSep te m

be r 20 10 , Bro wde r ag ai n s ue d the Po st m as te r Gen eral inth e U.S. Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a. Inhi s co m pl ai nt , Bro wde r ag ai n a ll eg edth atth e Po st al Serv ic e d is cri m in at edan d re ta li at edag ai ns t h im , in vi ol at io n o f Tit le VII, an d b reac he d the set tl em en t ag reem en t b y no t cr ed it in g h is
accrue d s ic k andan nu al leave . On Feb ru ary 24 , 20 11 , th e m ag is tra te jud ge is su ed a rep ort an d re co m

m en da ti on co nc lu di ng th at , gi ve n the earl ie r la wsu it , Bro wde r’s di sc riminat io n c la im s wer e b arre d b y th e d oc tri ne of i ss ue pre cl us io n. Inad di ti on , th e m ag is tra te jud ge de te rm in edth atth e d is tri ctco urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on ov er Bro wde r’s di sc riminat io n c la im s fo r th e sa m e rea so ns itlac ke d juris di ct io n o ve r hi s 2 00 7 c la im s: Bro wde r ha d s et tl edth os e cl ai m s an d fa il edto ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, an d the MSPB ha d n otde ci de d B ro wde r’s “ mix edcas e” di sc riminat io n c la im

onth e m eri ts . The m ag is tra te jud ge als o re co m m en de d d is m is si ng onjuri sd ic ti on al

could not add sick-le ave time to his servic e time in Dec ember 2006, afte r he ha d alre ady retire d eff ective Ma rch 2006. A s a re sult, the AL J conclude d that Br owder ’s ac tions render ed compliance by

the Postal Service impossible and “c ance lled the bene fit of his barg ain in the settlement agree ment.”
7gr ou nd s B ro wde r’s cl ai m th atth e Po st al Serv ic e b reac he d the set tl em en t ag reem en t. Bro wde r’s ch al le ng e to th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t was no t a “ m ix ed
cas e,” b utwas an i m

pr op er ap pe al of t he MSPB ’s ord er d en y in g h is pe ti ti onto
en fo rce the set tl em en t ag reem en t. Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt h as juri sd ic ti on to
rev ie w on ly “m ix edcas e[s ]” deci de d o n the m eri ts by the MSPB , th e d is tri ctco urt la ck edjuri sd ic ti on to he ar Br owd er’s cl ai m s wi thres pe ctto th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t. See Bal le nt in e,7 38 F.2dat 1 24 6; see als o 2 9 C .F.R. § 1 61 4.3 02 (a). The di st ric t co urt ad op te d the m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , and Bro wde r ti m el y

ap pe al ed
. 3 II . DISCUSSI ON A fed eral em

pl oyee m us t p ur su e an d e xh au stadm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b efo re fil in g an a ct io n u nd er Tit le VII. Crawfo rdv. Babb it t, 1 86 F.3d13 22 , 13 26 (11 th Ci r. 19 99 ). The M SPB i s “ anadm in is tra ti ve ag en cy th atha s juris di ct io n o ve r sp eci fie d a dv ers e em

pl oym en t ac ti on s af

fect in g fe de ral civ il serva nt s, i nc lu di ng te rm in at io ns , dem ot io ns , andsu sp en si on s.” C happ el l v . Cha o, 3 88 F.3d13 73 , 13 75 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) ; 5 U.S.C. § 7 51 2 (d et ai li ng adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on s s ub

ject t o the MSPB ’s juri sd ic ti on ). A

We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter 3 jurisdiction. Dalry

mple v. United States, 460 F.3d 1318, 1324 ( 11th Cir. 2006). 8fed eral em

pl oyee who all eg es th atanap pe al ab le adve rs e act io n was ba se d i n who le or i n p artondi sc riminat io n p res en ts a “ mix edcas e” tha t m ay be ap pe al ed di rect ly to the MSPB . Chapp el l, 3 88 F.3dat 1 37 5; 5 U.S.C. § 77 02 (a)( 1) (B) (p ro vi di ng th atth e MSP B s ha ll de ci de is su es of d is cri m in at io n tha t ac co m pa ny act io ns othe rwis e ap pe al ab le to th e MSP B); 29 C.F.R. § 16 14 .30 2( a). Exc ep t fo r cas es in cl ud in g d is cri m in at io n c la im s, a p et it io n t o re vi ew a fi na l de ci si on of t he MSPB “ sh al l b e fi le d” inth e U.S. Co urt o f App eal s fo r th e Fed eral Ci rcu it . 5 U.S.C. § 77 03 (b ). Howev er, i f th e MSP B reject s an em pl oyee’s cla im s ina m ix edcas e, th e em

pl oyee m ay

eit he r (1 ) ap pe al th e d is cri m in at io n c la im to th e EEOC; (2 ) ap pe al th e en ti re ca se or a ny partth ereo f to th e ap pr op ria te di stric t
co urt; or ( 3) waiv e th e d is cri m in at io n c la im an d app eal to th e Fed eral Cir cu it . Id. §§ 77 02 (a)( 1) , 77 03 (b ); 5 C.F.R. § § 1 20 1.1 57 , 12 01 .17 5. Un le ss th e di sc riminat io n c la im

an d the ap pe al ab le act io n h av e b eende ci de d o n the m eri ts by th e MSP B, anem

pl oyee ha s n o s ta tu to ry

rig htto a tr ia l d e n ov o i n adi st ric t co urt. Bal le nt in e , 73 8 F .2dat 1 24 6. Bro wde r’s in st an t co m

pl ai ntst emm edfro m

anen fo rcem en t ac ti on th athe ha d fi le d wi th th e MSP B, in whi chhe co nt en de d tha t the Po st al Serv ic e h ad br each edth e se tt le m en t ag reem en t. The MSPB fou ndth atth e Po st al Serv ic e h ad
no t b reac he d the ag reem en t, an d i n s o ru li ng , nev er ad dr es se d B ro wde r’s
9un de rlyin g d is cri m in at io n c la im s o n the m eri ts . As su ch , th e d is tri ctco urt l ack ed

juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e MSP B’s fi na l d eci si on , andBro wde r’s so le av enue for rel ie f was to ap pe al to th e Fed eral Cir cu it . See 5 U.S.C. §§ 77 02 (a)( 1) , 77 03 (b ). Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d B ro wde r’s co m pl ai ntforlac k o f
subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . II I. CONCLUSI ON Upo n re vi ew of

th e en ti re re co rdon ap pe al , andaft er co ns id erat io n o f th e pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

1 0