Supreme Court Clarifies Appeals Rights For Federal Employees

by Fisher Phillips
Contact

On December 10, 2012, the Supreme Court handed down a critical victory to federal employees in a highly technical case. This decision now gives federal employees a simpler and less confusing process for appealing discrimination cases that have been dismissed by the Merits Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Federal appellate courts previously were divided on which court should handle cases that were dismissed by the MSPB on procedural grounds. This Supreme Court decision gave a final answer to that question. Kloeckner v. Solis

The Court held that in a “mixed case” – one involving both a wrongful-termination claim and a discrimination claim – where the MSPB does not decide the merits of the discrimination claim, and dismisses the wrongful termination claim on procedural grounds, the employee may seek judicial review in federal district court, rather than with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This Supreme Court decision essentially will allow courts to hear more discrimination cases by allowing employees who receive an unfavorable decision by the MSPB to go file their claims directly in district court.

Background

Carolyn Kloeckner worked as a Senior Investigator for the Employment Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor (DOL). In June 2005, Kloeckner left work, purportedly on medical leave, and filed a charge with DOL’s civil rights office alleging a hostile work environment and discrimination based on age and gender. While that claim was pending, the DOL charged Kloeckner with being absent without leave for a six-week period in which she allegedly was using paid and unpaid leave. She then amended her charge to allege that the DOL retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity.

In July 2006, DOL fired Kloeckner, allegedly because of her six-week absence without leave. This converted Kloeckner’s dispute into a “mixed case,” because it involved allegations of wrongful termination within the jurisdiction of the MSPB, as well as her original allegations of discrimination. In an effort to avoid overlapping administrative proceedings – involving the EEOC and MSPB – Kloeckner moved to dismiss her appeal to the MSPB so that she could amend and pursue her EEOC Complaint.

The MSPB granted the motion and ordered her to refile her appeal, if necessary, by January 18, 2007. However, proceedings in the EEOC were still ongoing as a result of delays in the discovery process, so she did not refile by the MSPB deadline. In April 2007, the EEOC Administrative Law Judge canceled the proceedings as a sanction for Kloeckner’s discovery misconduct, and the case was returned to the DOL for a Final Agency Decision. In October 2007, the DOL in its Final Agency Decision, upheld the dismissal of her discrimination claims.

Kloeckner then had two options: 1) she could appeal the DOL’s final decision to the MSPB or, 2) having exhausted her remedies before the EEOC, she could file suit in federal district court. She chose the former. But the ALJ for the MSPB dismissed her appeal as being untimely – thereby dismissing it on procedural grounds, and not deciding the substantive issues of her discrimination claim.

Then, instead of appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Kloeckner filed a civil action in federal district court. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed.

Acknowledging a split amount the circuits, the 8th Circuit held that because the MSPB dismissed Kloeckner’s appeal on procedural grounds, and did not decide the merits of her discrimination claim, the district court lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, Kloeckner could only seek judicial review of the MSPB decision in the Federal Circuit, and only for the wrongful-termination claim, not the discrimination claims, because the Federal Circuit lacks authority to hear discrimination claims.

The Supreme Court took this case with the intent of resolving the complex interpretation of the statute at issue – the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA). At issue before the Supreme Court, was whether the Federal Circuit or a district court has jurisdiction over an appeal from MSPB decision in a “mixed case” containing claims of both wrongful termination and employment discrimination where the MSPB ruled only on procedural issues and did not reach the merits of the discrimination claim.

Court Rules In Favor Of Clarity

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 8th Circuit’s ruling and held that even if the MSPB dismisses a “mixed motive” case on purely procedural grounds, a district court would still have jurisdiction to hear the case because it involved a discrimination claim.

The Court reviewed this intersection of federal civil rights law and civil service law reading it to conclude that employees like Kloeckner’s only option is to file their claims in district court. The Court reasoned that it was undisputed that Kloeckner had brought a “mixed case” involving discrimination and wrongful-termination claims.

Because the applicable administrative law – the CSRA – required “cases of discrimination” to be filed in district court, then naturally a “mixed case” must also be filed in district court even after they are dismissed by the Board on procedural grounds. Furthermore, even if the MSPB had dismissed Kloeckner’s claims on the merits, the Supreme Court concluded that Kloeckner would have still been permitted to file her claims in district court.

Thus, the Court held that because Kloeckner alleged discrimination, this immediately triggered district court review under the CSRA, which in turn divested the Federal Circuit of any authority to review the appeal from the Board’s decision.

Significance To Employers

The Court’s decision dispelled the notion that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over “mixed cases” decided by the MSPB. This is significant for federal employers in particular, because federal employees now have the option of appealing a final agency decision that is a “mixed case” to the MSPB, and then file directly in district court if they disagree with the Board’s decision, regardless of whether the MSPB decided the case on the merits or threw the case out for being untimely. That means that federal employers might have to defend against more of these types of claims in the future.

In addition, this decision could also have an indirect effect on non-federal employers as well. It is clear based on this decision, that the Court was adamant about protecting employee’s rights, and not having an employee’s discrimination case dismissed on obscure hyper-technical grounds. Therefore, we could see a trend in future Supreme Court decisions where the Court interprets confusing statutes that could diminish an employee’s rights, in favor of the employees.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Fisher Phillips | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Fisher Phillips
Contact
more
less

Fisher Phillips on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!