Davis v. USPS

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 25-1136
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1136 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JIMMY I. DAVIS, Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent ______________________

2025-1136 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. NY-0752-22-0089-B-1. ______________________

Before REYNA, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER In response to our show cause order, Jimmy I. Davis confirms that he raised covered discrimination claims to the Merit Systems Protection Board as an affirmative de- fense to his removal, confirms that he intends to pursue those claims in his challenge to the Board’s adverse deci- sion, and requests that we transfer his case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The United States Postal Service (“USPS”) agrees that transfer Case: 25-1136 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2025

is appropriate but proposes the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. We agree that transfer is appropriate because federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), which involve an al- legation of an action appealable to the Board and an alle- gation that a basis for the action was covered discrimination or retaliation, § 7702(a). Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017); 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 equal employment opportunity activity “falls outside [of the court’s] jurisdictional reach”). This is such a case. We agree with USPS that the District of New Jersey is the appropriate district court rather than the D.C. district court because New Jersey appears to be the location where Mr. Davis was employed (and still resides), the alleged un- lawful employment practice occurred, and the relevant em- ployment records are maintained. 28 U.S.C. § 1631; see § 7703(b)(2) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c)); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) (permitting an action to be brought “in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employ- ment practice is alleged to have been committed[,] the em- ployment records relevant to such practice are maintained[,] or . . . the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice”). Accordingly, Case: 25-1136 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2025

DAVIS v. USPS 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: This matter and all case filings are transferred to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. FOR THE COURT

July 8, 2025 Date