Opinion ID: 4562346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We must address two jurisdictional questions of first impression that are presented in this case: (1) whether this court has jurisdiction to review a whistleblower retaliation claim brought before the MSPB as an affirmative defense to an employment action, and (2) whether we have jurisdiction over a case raising both discrimination and whistleblower retaliation defenses before the MSPB where the discrimination claim has been waived on appeal.2 Both questions are straightforward and easily resolved. 2 The MSPB joined as an intervenor and provided separate briefing in support of this court’s jurisdiction to review the case. 7 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit generally has jurisdiction over final decisions by the MSPB, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), with two exceptions. First, an appeal that also challenges an adverse employment action based upon a claim of prohibited discrimination (termed a “mixed case”) must be appealed to the appropriate federal district court. See Perry v. MSPB, 137 S. Ct. 1975, 1988 (2017)).3 Second, a petition for judicial review of: [A] final order or final decision of the [MSPB] that raises no challenge to the Board’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in [5 U.S.C.] section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C) or (D) shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added).4 A. Retaliation Claim as Affirmative Defense There are two ways whistleblower retaliation claims arise before the MSPB: (1) a stand-alone claim under 5 U.S.C. § 1221 as an individual right of action; or (2) as an 3 A “mixed case” or “mixed claim” raises “a personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB and alleges that the action was based on discrimination.” Perry, 137 S. Ct. at 1981 (quoting Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(a)(2). 4 Previously, petitions for review of final decisions by the MSPB were exclusively reviewed by the Federal Circuit. See Avilés v. MSPB, 799 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2015). The WPEA extended judicial review of final MSPB in whistleblower cases. See Pub. L. No. 112-199, 126 Stat. 1469 codified at 5. U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B). Initially set to sunset after two years and then extended another three years, see Pub. L. No. 113-170, the jurisdictional expansion was permanently authorized in 2018 by the All Circuit Review Act. Pub. L. No. 115-195, 132 Stat. 1510 (2018). 8 affirmative defense to an adverse employment action over which the MSPB has jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7513. In Mottas v. Dep’t of Army, 720 Fed. App’x 912, 913 (10th Cir. 2017), we exercised jurisdiction to review an MSPB decision on a direct individual whistleblower action filed under 5 U.S.C. § 1221.5 But we have not had occasion to exercise jurisdiction over an appeal from a final decision of the MSPB which includes a whistleblower claim raised as an affirmative defense. Notably, however, the WPEA’s grant of jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B) does not differentiate between whistleblower actions raised as direct claims and those raised as affirmative defenses but simply refers to “a petition for review.” See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B), supra at 7-8. Under the plain language of that statute, therefore, we have jurisdiction over appeals from final MSPB decisions on whistleblower claims where the claims arise either directly or as affirmative defenses. B. Waiver of Employment Discrimination Claim As we have noted, Mr. Baca originally challenged his removal as retaliation for three whistleblower disclosures and for his filing of an EEO discrimination complaint, making his claim a “mixed case.” Aple. App, vol. I at 445–49. The Code of Federal Regulations explains that an aggrieved employee “may obtain judicial review as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 7703” where the employee “elects to waive the discrimination issue” on 5 For jurisdiction, we relied in Mottas on the 2012 version of the WPEA. See 720 F. App’x at 912 n.1. The language of that statute is equivalent to the current language of § 7703(b)(1)(B), which permanently grants jurisdiction to “any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.” See Pub. L. No. 115-195, 132 Stat. 1510 (2018). 9 appeal. 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.120 & 1201.157. Because Mr. Baca filed an explicit waiver of his discrimination claim and only appeals the denial of one of his other affirmative defenses, we have jurisdiction under § 7703 to review this case.