Thomas H. Davidson, Jr. v. United States Postal Service

24 F.3d 223, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10786, 64 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,028, 1994 WL 185934
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedMay 13, 1994
Docket94-3013
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 24 F.3d 223 (Thomas H. Davidson, Jr. v. United States Postal Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas H. Davidson, Jr. v. United States Postal Service, 24 F.3d 223, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10786, 64 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,028, 1994 WL 185934 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Opinion

ORDER

NIES, Circuit Judges.

Thomas H. Davidson, Jr., appeals the affirmance of his removal from the United States Postal Service for unsatisfactory attendance and failure to adhere to the required work schedule. Before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Mr. Davidson asserted a claim of discrimination. In Williams v. Department of the Army, 715 F.2d 1485 (Fed.Cir.1983), this court held that it had no jurisdiction over the merits of a mixed case, i.e., one involving an adverse *224 action and a claim of discrimination. However, a case which was presented to the MSPB as a mixed case will be heard by this court if the petitioner files an explicit waiver of the claim of discrimination. The government argues that simply by appealing to this court, Mr. Davidson has waived his discrimination claim. We disagree. As held in Daniels v. United States Postal Service, 726 F.2d 723, 724 (Fed.Cir.1984), a waiver of a claim of discrimination must be by an express written statement.

Mr. Davidson filed no statement that he waived his claim of discrimination on the merits. Inappropriately, the waiver he filed indicates he seeks review of the MSPB’s dismissal of his case for lack of jurisdiction or untimeliness, issues not involved at this stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Petitioner file with the court within 15 days of the date hereof either (1) a request for this court to proceed which must be accompanied by the appropriate waiver, or (2) a request for transfer to a particular United States district court.

In the absence of a timely response, the appeal is subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miller v. DVA
Federal Circuit, 2020
Smith v. United States Postal Service
462 F. App'x 961 (Federal Circuit, 2012)
Allison v. Department of Transportation
452 F. App'x 961 (Federal Circuit, 2010)
McCoy v. United States Postal Service
309 F. App'x 420 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Stribling v. Department of Education
309 F. App'x 396 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Thurston v. Department of Veterans Affairs
254 F. App'x 811 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Tina M. Stephens v. Dept. Of the Treasury
226 F. App'x 995 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Townsend v. Department of the Army
191 F. App'x 949 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Clay v. United States Postal Service
74 F. App'x 47 (Federal Circuit, 2003)
Janice L. Yorkowitz v. Department of Treasury
106 F.3d 428 (Federal Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 F.3d 223, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10786, 64 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,028, 1994 WL 185934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-h-davidson-jr-v-united-states-postal-service-cafc-1994.