Opinion ID: $opinion_id
Heading Depth: 1.0
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: $label

Text: Federal employees, the Government acknowledges, have a right to pursue claims of discrimination in violation of federal law in federal district court. Nor is there any doubt that the Federal Circuit lacks authority to adjudicate such claims. See §7703(c) (preserving “right to have the facts subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court” in any “case of discrimination” brought under §7703(b)(2)). The sole question here disputed: What procedural route may an employee in Perry’s situation take to gain judicial review of the MSPB’s jurisdictional disposition of a complaint that alleges adverse action taken under the CSRA in whole or in part due to discrimination proscribed by federal law?

The Government argues, and the dissent agrees, that employees, situated as Perry is, must split their claims, appealing MSPB nonappealability rulings to the Federal Circuit while repairing to the district court for adjudication of their discrimination claims. As Perry sees it, one stop is all he need make. Exclusively competent to adjudicate “[c]ases of discrimination,” §7703(b)(2), the district court alone can resolve his entire complaint, Perry urges; the CSRA, he maintains, forces no bifurcation of his case.

Section 7702(a)(1), the Government contends, marks a case as mixed only if the employee “has been affected by an action which the employee . . . may appeal to the [MSPB].” Brief for Respondent 15, 17–19, 21. An MSPB finding of nonappealability removes a case from that category, the Government asserts, and hence, from the purview of “[c]ases of discrimination” described in §7703(b)(2). Id., at 21. Only this reading of the CSRA’s provisions on judicial review—one ordering Federal Circuit review of any and all MSPB appealability determinations—the Government maintains, can ensure nationwide uniformity in answering questions arising under the CSRA. Id., at 26–32.

Perry emphasizes in response that §7702(a)(1)(A)’s language, delineating cases in which an employee “has been affected by an action which the employee . . . may appeal to the [MSPB],” is not confined to cases an employee may successfully appeal to the Board. Brief for Petitioner 19. The MSPB’s adverse ruling on the merits of his claim that the settlement was coerced, Perry argues, “did not retroactively divest the MSPB of jurisdiction to render that decision.” Id., at 21. The key consideration, according to Perry, is not what the MSPB determined about appealability; it is instead the nature of an employee’s claim that he had been “affected by an action [appealable] to the [MSPB]” (here, suspension for more than 14 days and involuntary removal, see §7512(1), (2)). See id., at 11, 23–24. Perry draws support for this argument from our recognition that “a party [may] establish jurisdiction at the outset of a case by means of a nonfrivolous assertion of jurisdictional elements,” Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 537 (1995). See Brief for Petitioner 21–22.

Perry, we hold, advances the more sensible reading of the statutory prescriptions. The Government’s procedurejurisdiction distinction, we conclude, is no more tenable than “the merits-procedure distinction” we rejected in Kloeckner, 568 U.S., at 51.

As just noted, a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction generally suffices to establish jurisdiction upon initiation of a case. See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc., 513 U.S., at 537. See also Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–683 (1946) (To invoke federal-question jurisdiction, allegations in a complaint must simply be more than “insubstantial or frivolous,” and “[i]f the court does later exercise its jurisdiction to determine that the allegations in the complaint do not state a ground for relief, then dismissal of the case would be on the merits, not for want of jurisdiction.”). So too here: whether an employee “has been affected by an action which [she] may appeal to the [MSPB],” §7702(a) (1)(A), turns on her well-pleaded allegations. Kloeckner, EEOC regulations, and Courts of Appeals’ decisions are corroborative.

We announced a clear rule in Kloeckner: “[M]ixed cases shall be filed in district court.” 568 U.S., at 50. An employee brings a mixed case, we explained, when she “complains of a personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB,” e.g., suspension for more than 14 days, §7512(2), “and alleges that the action was based on discrimination.” Id., at 44 (emphasis deleted). The key to district court review, we said, was the employee’s “clai[m] that an agency action appealable to the MSPB violates an antidiscrimination statute listed in §7702(a)(1).” Id., at 56 (emphasis added).

EEOC regulations, see supra, at 3, are in accord: The defining feature of a “mixed case appeal,” those regulations instruct, is the employee’s “alleg[ation] that an appealable agency action was effected, in whole or in part, because of discrimination.” 29 CFR §1614.302(a)(2) (2016) (emphasis added). Several Courts of Appeals have similarly described mixed-case appeals as those alleging an adverse action subject to MSPB jurisdiction taken, in whole or in part, because of unlawful discrimination. See, e.g., Downey v. Runyon, 160 F.3d 139, 143 (CA2 1998) (“Mixed appeals to the MSPB are those appeals alleging an appealable action affected in whole or in part by prohibited discrimination.” (emphasis added)); Powell, 158 F.3d, at 597 (defining mixed-case appeal as “an appeal alleging both a Board-jurisdictional agency action and a claim of unlawful discrimination” (emphasis added)). See also Conforto, 713 F.3d, at 1126–1127, n. 5 (Dyk, J., dissenting).4

Because Perry “complain[ed] of a personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB” (in his case, a 30-day suspension and involuntary removal, see supra, at 6; §7512(1), (2)) and “allege[d] that the [personnel] action was based on discrimination,” he brought a mixed case. Kloeckner, 568 U.S., at 44.5 Judicial review of such a case lies in district court. Id., at 50, 56.

The Government rests heavily on a distinction between MSPB merits and procedural decisions, on the one hand, and the Board’s jurisdictional rulings, on the other.6 The distinction has multiple infirmities.

“If Congress had wanted to [bifurcate judicial review,] send[ing] merits decisions to district court and procedural dismissals to the Federal Circuit,” we observed in Kloeckner, “it could just have said so.” Id., at 52. The same observation could be made about bifurcating judicial review here, sending the MSPB’s merits and procedural decisions to district court, but its jurisdictional dismissals to the Federal Circuit.7

The Government’s attempt to separate jurisdictional dismissals from procedural dismissals is newly devised. In Kloeckner, the Government agreed with the employee that there was “no basis” for a procedure-jurisdiction distinction. Brief for Respondent, O. T. 2012, No. 11–184, p. 25, n. 3; see Reply to Brief in Opposition, O. T. 2012, No. 11–184, pp. 1–2 (stating employee’s agreement with the Government that procedural and jurisdictional dismissals should travel together). Issues of both kinds, the Government there urged, should go to the Federal Circuit. Drawing such a distinction, the Government observed, would be “difficult and unpredictable.” Brief in Opposition in Kloeckner, O. T. 2012, No. 11–184, p. 15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Now, in light of our holding in Kloeckner that procedural dismissals should go to district court, the Government has changed course, contending that MSPB procedural and jurisdictional dismissals should travel different paths.8

A procedure-jurisdiction distinction for purposes of determining the court in which judicial review lies, as both parties recognized in Kloeckner, would be perplexing and elusive. If a 30-day suspension followed by termination becomes nonappealable to the MSPB when the Board credits a release signed by the employee, one may ask why a determination that the employee complained of such adverse actions (suspension and termination) too late, i.e., after a Board-set deadline, does not similarly render the complaint nonappealable. In both situations, the Board disassociates itself from the case upon making a threshold determination. This Court, like others, we note, has sometimes wrestled over the proper characterization of timeliness questions. Compare Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209–211, 215 (2007) (timely filing of notice of appeal in civil cases is “jurisdictional”), with id., at 217–219 (Souter, J., dissenting) (timeliness of notice of appeal is a procedural issue).

Just as the proper characterization of a question as jurisdictional rather than procedural can be slippery, the distinction between jurisdictional and merits issues is not inevitably sharp, for the two inquiries may overlap. See Shoaf v. Department of Agriculture, 260 F.3d 1336, 1341 (CA Fed. 2001) (“recogniz[ing] that the MSPB’s jurisdiction and the merits of an alleged involuntary separation are inextricably intertwined” (internal quotation marks omitted)). This case fits that bill. The MSPB determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Perry’s civil-service claims on the ground that he voluntarily released those claims by entering into a valid settlement with his employing agency, the Census Bureau. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a.9 But the validity of the settlement is at the heart of the dispute on the merits of Perry’s complaint. In essence, the MSPB ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because Perry’s claims fail on the merits. See Shoaf, 260 F.3d, at 1341 (If it is established that an employee’s “resignation or retirement was involuntary and thus tantamount to forced removal,” then “not only [does the Board] ha[ve] jurisdiction, but also the employee wins on the merits and is entitled to reinstatement.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Conforto, 713 F.3d, at 1126 (Dyk, J., dissenting) (“[I]t cannot be that [the Federal Circuit] lack[s] jurisdiction to review the ‘merits’ of mixed cases but nevertheless may review ‘jurisdictional’ issues that are identical to the merits . . . .”).10

Distinguishing between MSPB jurisdictional rulings and the Board’s procedural or substantive rulings for purposes of allocating judicial review authority between district court and the Federal Circuit is problematic for a further reason: In practice, the distinction may be unworkable. The MSPB sometimes rules on alternate grounds, one typed “jurisdictional,” another either procedural or substantive. See, e.g., Davenport v. Postal Service, 97 MSPR 417 (2004) (dismissing “for lack of jurisdiction and as untimely filed” (emphasis added)). To which court does appeal lie? Or, suppose that the Board addresses a complaint that encompasses multiple claims, dismissing some for want of jurisdiction, others on procedural or substantive grounds. See, e.g., Donahue v. Postal Service, 2006 WL 859448, *1, *3 (ED Pa., Mar. 31, 2006). Tellingly, the Government is silent on the proper channeling of appeals in such cases.

Desirable as national uniformity may be,11 it should not override the expense, delay, and inconvenience of requiring employees to sever inextricably related claims, resorting to two discrete appellate forums, in order to safeguard their rights. Perry’s comprehension of the complex statutory text, we are persuaded, best serves “[t]he CSRA’s objective of creating an integrated scheme of review[, which] would be seriously undermined” by “parallel litigation regarding the same agency action.” Elgin, 567 U.S., at 14. See also United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 444–445 (1988).12 Perry asks us not to “tweak” the statute, see post, at 1, but to read it sensibly, i.e., to refrain from reading into it the appeal-splitting bifurcation sought by the Government. Accordingly, we hold: (1) the Federal Circuit is the proper review forum when the MSPB disposes of complaints arising solely under the CSRA; and (2) in mixed cases, such as Perry’s, in which the employee (or former employee) complains of serious adverse action prompted, in whole or in part, by the employing agency’s violation of federal antidiscrimination laws, the district court is the proper forum for judicial review.