Opinion ID: 4541693
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: We Lack Jurisdiction to Review This Mixed Case

Text: Ms. Green-Doyle’s removal from the agency was an action appealable to the MSPB. S.A. 6; see 5 U.S.C. § 7701 (“An employee . . . may submit an appeal to the [MSPB] from any action which is appealable to the [MSPB] under any law, rule, or regulation.”); id. § 4303(a) (“Subject to the provisions of this section, an agency may . . . remove an employee for unacceptable performance.”). Accordingly, whether we have jurisdiction in this case hinges upon whether Ms. Green-Doyle alleged a form of discrimination provided in § 7702(a)(1)(B) as the basis for her removal, which would present us with a mixed case that we lack jurisdiction to review. We conclude that she did. Ms. Green-Doyle has not abandoned her affirmative defense of discrimination. On appeal, Ms. Green-Doyle argues that the MSPB erred by “fail[ing] to look [at] evidence relative to retaliation [and] harassment[.]” Pet’r’s Br. 1. The retaliation, according to Ms. Green-Doyle, is that she was removed from Federal service based on her contact with the EEOC. S.A. 25. Moreover, in her initial Form 10, Ms. Green-Doyle stated that she was “not sure of these questions[,]” in response to inquiries about whether she had filed discrimination cases with a district court or with the EEOC. Form 10 at 1. In response to this court’s request for clarification on whether she intended to abandon her discrimination claims, see Order at 1–2, Ms. GreenDoyle stated that she “ha[s] not stated [that she] want[s] to discontinue any part” of her discrimination claims, see Green-Doyle Letter at 1. As we determined in Diggs, this affirmative defense does constitute an “assertion of Case: 19-1955 Document: 30 Page: 7 Filed: 06/16/2020 SCOTT GREEN-DOYLE v. DHS 7 discrimination under Title VII and [is] within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 7702.” Diggs, 570 F.3d at 1358. As Ms. GreenDoyle does not abandon her discrimination claim, she presents us with a mixed case, which we may not review for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 1358. 4