Case: 24-2295 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GENISE A. PENNANT, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent ______________________

2024-2295 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT-0752-19-0689-I-1. ______________________

Before REYNA, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Genise A. Pennant petitions this court to review the fi- nal decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirm- ing her removal and rejecting her affirmative defense of discrimination based on disability. In response to this court’s show cause order, Ms. Pennant appears to argue in favor of this court’s jurisdiction, while the Department of the Air Force argues in favor of transfer. Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of Case: 24-2295 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 11/21/2024

2 PENNANT v. AIR FORCE

[5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), which involve an allegation of an action appealable to the Board and an al- legation that a basis for the action was covered discrimina- tion (even if other defenses are also raised), § 7702. Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). Here, Ms. Pennant appealed her removal to the Board, alleged that a basis of that action was covered discrimination, and continues to pursue her discrimination claim, such that her case belongs in district court. 1 We agree with the Depart- ment of the Air Force that transfer to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where the employment action appears to have occurred, is appropri- ate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Accordingly,

1 Ms. Pennant argues that she did not raise a claim of covered discrimination under § 7702 (contrary to the Board’s decision), ECF No. 12 at 1, yet she continues to ar- gue that “[f]ederal [l]aw was supposed to provide protec- tions . . . [under] Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).” ECF No. 10 at 2. “[T]he ADA does not apply to federal employers,” but “the Rehabilitation Act [of 1973, listed in § 7702,] provides federal employees with an essentially identical remedy for employment discrimi- nation based on disability.” Knope v. Garland, No. 20- 3274, 2021 WL 5183536, at *1 n.2 (2d Cir. Nov. 9, 2021). Case: 24-2295 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 11/21/2024

PENNANT v. AIR FORCE 3

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

November 21, 2024 Date