Tilford v. MSPB

Case: 25-1682 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 02/09/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ KRYSTLE M. TILFORD, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________ 2025-1682 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. NY-0752-24-0009-I-1. ______________________ Before LOURIE and HUGHES, Circuit Judges, and KLEEH, Chief District Judge.† PER CURIAM.

ORDER Krystle M. Tilford petitions for review of a final deci- sion of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing the appeal of her removal from the United States Postal Ser- vice. Ms. Tilford alleged her removal was the result of pro- hibited discrimination based on her requests for reasonable

† Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

Case: 25-1682 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 02/09/2026

2 TILFORD v. MSPB accommodations related to a medical condition and her sta- tus as a caregiver to a child with autism. In her “Statement Concerning Discrimination” filed with this court, Ms. Til- ford certified she did “not wish to abandon [her] discrimi- nation claims.” Dkt. No. 5 at 1, 3. The government argues that, without a waiver of her discrimination claims, we lack jurisdiction over Ms. Tilford’s arguments. As such, the gov- ernment requests we transfer the appeal to the Southern District of New York.

Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction over mixed-case appeals, or appeals “filed with the [Board] that allege[ ] that an appealable agency action was ef- fected, in whole or in part, because of discrimination on the basis of race; color; religion; sex; national origin; disability; age; genetic information; or pregnancy, childbirth, or re- lated medical conditions.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(a)(2); see Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). Be- cause Ms. Tilford argues her removal was based on unlaw- ful discrimination, we transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the employment action oc- curred.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: This matter and all case filings are transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

FOR THE COURT

February 9, 2026 Date