Roy v. Department of Agriculture

Case: 25-1652 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________ DIANE ROY, Petitioner v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondent ______________________

2025-1652 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DA-0432-20-0133-B-1.

______________________

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Diane Roy appealed her removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board asserting, among other things, that a ba- sis for her removal was age/race discrimination, whistle- blowing retaliation, and reprisal for prior equal employment opportunity activity. In response to the court’s show cause order, Ms. Roy indicates that she does “not want [her] discrimination case dismissed,” and if this court does not possess jurisdiction, she is “sure [this court] will forward it to the right court.” ECF No. 11 at 1. The Case: 25-1652 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2025 2 ROY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Department of Agriculture requests transfer to the United States District Court for the for the Eastern District of Lou- isiana. ECF No. 10 at 8.

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 allegation of an action appealable to the Board and an al- legation that a basis for the action was covered discrimina- tion or retaliation, id. § 7702. 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 employ- ment opportunity activity “falls outside [of the court’s] ju- risdictional reach”). Here, Ms. Roy alleged that her removal was based, at least in part, on covered discrimina- tion such that her case belongs in district court. Under such circumstances, we find it appropriate to transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where the employment action appears to have occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This matter and all case filings are transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

FOR THE COURT September 12, 2025

Date