Court Opinion

ID: 9946185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 16:02:38.296362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:37.791629
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-1126    Document: 16     Page: 1   Filed: 02/20/2024

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  ANITA FAY THOMAS,
                       Petitioner

                             v.

      DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                   Respondent
             ______________________

                        2024-1126
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. AT-0752-14-0008-I-1.
                 ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

  Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
                        Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     Anita Fay Thomas petitions this court for review of the
 final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board af-
 firming her removal and rejecting her affirmative defense
 concerning reprisal for Equal Employment Opportunity
 (“EEO”) activity. The Department of Veterans Affairs now
Case: 24-1126     Document: 16      Page: 2     Filed: 02/20/2024

 2                                               THOMAS v. DVA

 moves to transfer to the United States District Court for
 the Middle District of Alabama, or in the alternative, to
 dismiss. According to the Department’s motion, Ms.
 Thomas indicates that she “would like to continue with
 [her] pursuit of discrimination.” ECF No. 15 at 1.
      Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction
 over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of
 [5 U.S.C.] § 7702,” i.e., cases involving adverse actions ap-
 pealable to the Board and allegations of covered discrimi-
 nation. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
 582 U.S. 420, 432 (2017); 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1); Diggs v.
 Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 670 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
 2011) (holding that the affirmative defense of retaliation
 for prior EEO activity “falls outside [of the court’s] jurisdic-
 tional reach”). Because Ms. Thomas is pursuing a case of
 discrimination here, we grant the motion and transfer pur-
 suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the Middle District of Ala-
 bama, where the employment action occurred.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     The motion to transfer is granted to the extent that this
 case and all transmittals are transferred, pursuant to 28
 U.S.C. § 1631, to the United States District Court for the
 Middle District of Alabama.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 February 20, 2024
       Date