Morris v. Department of Transportation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: June 9, 2025
• Docket: 25-1055
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1055 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CARL CRAIG MORRIS, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent ______________________

2025-1055 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-0752-17-0441-B-1. ______________________

Decided: June 9, 2025 ______________________

CARL CRAIG MORRIS, Prince Frederick, MD, pro se.

NELSON KUAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE. ______________________ Case: 25-1055 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2025

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST, Circuit Judge, and HALL, District Judge. 1 PER CURIAM. Dr. Carl Craig Morris petitions for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) reversing the United States Department of Transportation’s (agency) removal of Dr. Morris. Because the Board’s decision is not adverse to Dr. Morris, we dismiss. BACKGROUND Dr. Morris worked as a mathematical statistician within the agency’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. S. Appx. 1. 2 He was removed from the position, effective March 23, 2017, for conduct unbecoming a federal em- ployee based on his behavior during a meeting with his su- pervisor on October 24, 2016. S. Appx. 1–2. Specifically, the agency charged Dr. Morris with “deliberate efforts to intimidate and cause anxiety to his supervisor,” causing “disruption to the workplace.” S. Appx. 2 (cleaned up); S. Appx. 33–34. Dr. Morris timely appealed his removal to the Board and raised several affirmative defenses, including retalia- tion for prior equal employment activity, retaliation for whistleblowing, and discrimination. S. Appx. 1–2. The ad- ministrative judge (AJ) held the agency failed to show by preponderant evidence Dr. Morris’ conduct during the Oc- tober 24 meeting was a deliberate attempt to produce anx- iety and intimidation. S. Appx. 2–9. Accordingly, the AJ did not sustain the agency’s removal of Dr. Morris.

1 The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation. 2 “S. Appx.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix at- tached to Respondent’s Corrected Informal Brief. Case: 25-1055 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2025

MORRIS v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 3

S. Appx. 9. The AJ then considered and rejected Dr. Mor- ris’ affirmative defenses. S. Appx. 9–17. Because the agency failed to prove its basis for removal, the AJ ordered the agency to restore Dr. Morris to his position with back pay. S. Appx. 17. Dr. Morris petitions for review. We have jurisdiction over petitions for review of Board decisions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C. § 7703. DISCUSSION We have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Board only if there is a “final order or final decision” of the Board that has “adversely affected or aggrieved” an employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9); 5 U.S.C. § 7703; Esparraguera v. Dep’t of the Army, 981 F.3d 1328, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In this case, Dr. Morris brought a successful challenge to the agency’s decision to remove him from his position. On ap- peal, he challenges the AJ’s rejection of his affirmative de- fenses and argues he made protected disclosures under the Whistleblower Protection Act. See, e.g., Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2–3. The AJ’s rejection of Dr. Morris’ affirmative defenses does not make the decision adverse to him. The AJ ordered the agency to reinstate Dr. Morris and awarded him back pay. S. Appx. 17–18. Because Dr. Morris is not “adversely affected or aggrieved” by the AJ’s decision, we lack juris- diction over his petition. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). There are no further remedies available to Dr. Morris in this action. CONCLUSION We dismiss Dr. Morris’ petition for lack of jurisdiction. 3 DISMISSED

3 Dr. Morris’ motion to take judicial notice, ECF No. 13, is denied as moot. Case: 25-1055 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2025

COSTS No costs.