Henry W. Mayfield v. United States Postal Service

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
HENRY W. MAYFIELD,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Respondent.
______________________
2013-3154
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DA0752120095-I-2.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before P ROST , O’M ALLEY and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Henry W. Mayfield seeks review of a decision of the
Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) sustaining the
United States Postal Service’s decision to remove May-
field for unacceptable performance. Because of the limits
of our jurisdiction to review mixed cases, i.e., challenges
to an adverse action that was allegedly based, at least in
Case: 13-3154 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2014

-- 1 of 4 --

MAYFIELD v. USPS 2
part, upon prohibited discrimination, we grant the agen-
cy’s motion to the extent that we transfer the case to
federal district court.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Mayfield was employed as a city mail carrier with
the Postal Service’s Valley Ranch Station in Irving, Texas
until December 10, 2011, when he was removed for,
among other things, refusing to deliver mail.
In May 2012, Mr. Mayfield appealed his removal to
the Board. He asserts that his removal was motivated by
racial discrimination, as well as retaliation for his prior
equal employment opportunity activity, whistleblowing
disclosure, and a lawsuit accusing the Postmaster and
several co-workers of identity theft.
In September 2012, the administrative judge who was
assigned to the case sustained the removal action. As to
Mr. Mayfield’s racial discrimination allegations, the
administrative judge found that there was no evidence
suggesting the agency’s action was disparate when com-
pared with the penalties imposed on employees who were
not in his protected group who were charged with or
engaging in the same conduct. In that regard, the admin-
istrative judge pointed out that the employees identified
by Mr. Mayfield did not work in the same facility and did
not have the same supervisors as Mr. Mayfield, and there
was no evidence indicating they purposely refused to
deliver the mail.
With regard to Mr. Mayfield’s protected activity alle-
gations, the administrative judge found that Mr. Mayfield
had failed to demonstrate that the removal action was
taken because of the protected activity as opposed to his
refusal to deliver the mail. After the Board affirmed the
administrative judge’s initial decision in July 2013, Mr.
Mayfield timely appealed to this court.
Case: 13-3154 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2014

-- 2 of 4 --

MAYFIELD v. USPS 3
D ISCUSSION
This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the
Board involving cases of discrimination is limited by
statute. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703. We have jurisdiction to
review a Board determination that an employee’s case is
not appealable to the Board, regardless of whether the
employee has sought to raise claims of agency discrimina-
tion. See 5 U.S.C. §7703(b)(1); 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1)(A);
Conforto v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 713 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed.
Cir. 2013). We do not have jurisdiction to review cases
involving discrimination allegations. See 5 U.S.C.
§7703(b)(2); Kloeckner v. Solis, 133 S. Ct. 596, 607 (2012).
This case falls outside of our limited review authority.
The Board did not dismiss Mr. Mayfield’s appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. Rather, it exercised jurisdiction over the
case and rejected Mr. Mayfield’s allegation that his re-
moval was motivated by racial discrimination. Because
this court lacks jurisdiction and judicial review of a Board
decision in a mixed case that includes a discrimination
claim is instead assigned to the district courts, we grant
the agency’s motion to the extent that we transfer the
petition to the United States District Court for the North-
ern District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (authorizing
transfer of an appeal to the court it could have been
brought at the time it was filed or noticed).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The motion is granted to the extent that the petition
is transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Case: 13-3154 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 03/27/2014

-- 3 of 4 --

MAYFIELD v. USPS 4
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s19
Case: 13-3154 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 03/27/2014

-- 4 of 4 --