The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Wednesday that the proper review forum when the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) [official website] dismisses a mixed case on jurisdictional grounds is district court. The decision comes out of Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board [SCOTUSblog materials], a case concerning a federal employee who had a complaint of both adverse employment accusations and that those accusations were based on discriminatory grounds, otherwise known as a “mixed case.” If a federal employee asserts rights exclusively under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) [text], a statute that gives the MSPB the power to review personnel actions against a federal employee, the decisions are subject to judicial review in the Federal Circuit whereas if the employee invokes federal antidiscrimination law, the federal district court has jurisdiction. The government argued that Perry should “split their claims, appealing MSPB nonappealability rulings to the Federal Circuit while repairing to the district court for adjudication of their discrimination claims.” The court held, “in mixed cases, such as Perry’s, in which the employee (or former employee) complains of serious adverse action prompted, in whole or in part, by the employing agency’s violation of federal antidiscrimination laws, the district court is the proper forum for judicial review. ” Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented stating,

At the end of a long day, I just cannot find anything preventing us from applying the statute as written—or heard any good reason for deviating from its terms. Indeed, it’s not even clear how overhauling the statute as Mr. Perry wishes would advance the efficiency rationale he touts. The only thing that seems sure to follow from accepting his invitation is all the time and money litigants will spend, and all the ink courts will spill, as they work their way to a wholly remodeled statutory regime. Respectfully, Congress already wrote a perfectly good law. I would follow it.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in January and heard oral arguments [JURIST reports] in April.