Camille Wilson v. Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CAMILLE WILSON,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1355
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. CH-1221-23-0231-W-1.
______________________
Decided: September 5, 2024
______________________
CAMILLE WILSON, Cleveland, OH, pro se.
CONSTANCE E. T RAVANTY , Office of General Counsel,
United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON J ANE
BOYLE, K ATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH .
______________________
Case: 24-1355 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 1 of 7 --

WILSON v. MSPB 2
Before D YK and S TOLL , Circuit Judges, and MURPHY ,
District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Camille Wilson challenges the Merit Systems Protec-
tion Board’s dismissal of her individual right of action ap-
peal for lack of jurisdiction. Ms. Wilson claimed that the
Department of Veterans Affairs retaliated against her be-
cause of her equal employment opportunity activity. Be-
cause we conclude that the Board did not have jurisdiction,
we affirm the Board’s dismissal.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Wilson was employed by the VA as a Program Sup-
port Clerk with the Veterans Health Administration in
Cleveland, Ohio starting in May 2022, and her employment
was subject to a two-year probationary period. During her
employment, Ms. Wilson sought to apply for another posi-
tion for which she alleges she was qualified but ultimately
not selected. In September 2022, Ms. Wilson communi-
cated to her supervisors her intent to file an equal employ-
ment opportunity (EEO) complaint regarding her non-
selection. She then contacted the VA’s EEO officer and
filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination based on
her disability, race, age, reprisal, and involvement in a pro-
tected activity.
In October 2022, Ms. Wilson filed a complaint with the
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) alleging that, in relation
for her EEO activity, she was subject to a hostile work en-
vironment, false complaints, and harassment; had compen-
sation withheld from her; and was terminated from her
position in December 2022, seven months into her two-year
1 Honorable John F. Murphy, District Judge, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylva-
nia, sitting by designation.
Case: 24-1355 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 2 of 7 --

WILSON v. MSPB 3
probationary period. The OSC closed its investigation into
Ms. Wilson’s complaint in January 2023, issuing her a let-
ter notice that: (1) stated she had exhausted her OSC ad-
ministrative remedy, and (2) informed her of MSPB appeal
rights.
On March 17, 2023, Ms. Wilson, who was represented
by counsel, timely filed an individual right of action (IRA)
appeal with the MSPB “alleging she was harassed, had
compensation to which she was entitled withheld, and was
eventually terminated in an attempt to conceal discrimina-
tory conduct.” Appx. 2.2 On March 20, 2023, the Adminis-
trative Judge issued a jurisdiction order informing
Ms. Wilson of her burden to establish Board jurisdiction
over her IRA appeal by showing that she exhausted her ad-
ministrative remedy with OSC and was nonfrivolously al-
leging that she made a protected disclosure or engaged in
protected activity under the Whistleblower Protection Act,
Pub. L. No. 101-12, 103 Stat. 16 (1989) (WPA), as amended
by the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012,
Pub. L. No. 112-199, 126 Stat. 1465–76 (WPEA). The order
instructed Ms. Wilson to respond, but she failed to do so in
a timely manner and the VA moved to dismiss.
On April 6, 2023, the Administrative Judge issued a
show cause order, which advised Ms. Wilson that, based on
the record, the Administrative Judge could not discern a
protected disclosure or activity because “disclosures that
an agency discriminated against an appellant in violation
of Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] and/or related
laws, remediable through EEO processes, concern matters
Congress did not seek to cover in enacting the whistle-
blower protection statutes.” Appx. 3. In responding to both
the show cause order and the VA’s motion to dismiss,
Ms. Wilson asserted that she engaged in protected
2 Appx. refers to the Appendix attached to Respond-
ent’s Informal Response Brief, ECF No. 13.
Case: 24-1355 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 3 of 7 --

WILSON v. MSPB 4
whistleblower activity when she informed her supervisors
of her intent to pursue an EEO complaint and then actually
engaged in EEO activity.
On November 7, 2023, the Administrative Judge is-
sued an initial decision dismissing Ms. Wilson’s IRA appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. The Administrative Judge found
that, while Ms. Wilson’s allegations of discrimination and
reprisal may be actionable in other venues, Ms. Wilson had
not supported nonfrivolous allegations that she made a
protected disclosure or engaged in protected whistleblow-
ing activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or § (b)(9)(A)(i) be-
cause neither the WPA nor the WPEA protect claims made
under Title VII, and Ms. Wilson had alleged discrimination
only against herself. Neither party filed an administrative
petition for review with the Board, thus the Administrative
Judge’s initial decision became final on December 12, 2023.
Ms. Wilson timely challenges the Board’s dismissal of
her IRA appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(9).
D ISCUSSION
We review determinations of the Board concerning its
jurisdiction de novo. Parrot v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
519 F.3d 1328, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This court’s jurisdic-
tion is not abrogated by a petitioner’s claims of discrimina-
tion or EEO reprisal. Young v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
961 F.3d 1323, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that a pe-
tition for review of an IRA appeal is not a “mixed case,” as
such petitions are governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B) and
thus within this court’s jurisdiction).
The Board has jurisdiction over an IRA appeal if the
appellant has exhausted her administrative remedies
Case: 24-1355 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 4 of 7 --

WILSON v. MSPB 5
before the OSC3 and makes nonfrivolous allegations
that: (1) she engaged in whistleblowing activity by making
a protected disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or en-
gaged in protected activity described under 5 U.S.C.
§ 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D); and (2) the disclosure was
a contributing factor in the agency’s decision to take or fail
to take a “personnel action” as defined by 5 U.S.C.
§ 2302(a)(2)(A). Hessami v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 979 F.3d
1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also Young, 961 F.3d
at 1328.
Here, Ms. Wilson continues to contend that she faced
discrimination, was retaliated against for engaging in EEO
activity, and eventually wrongfully terminated. Allega-
tions of discrimination under Title VII or “retaliation for
exercising a Title VII right, however, do not fall within the
scope of [§] 2302(b)(8) of the Whistleblower Protection Act
and are therefore not proper subjects for inclusion in an
IRA appeal on that ground.” Young, 961 F.3d at 1329. Nor
does the WPEA save her claims. The WPEA “expanded the
list of prohibited personnel practices for which the Board
can grant corrective action to include those set forth in
5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i),” which “covers retaliation for
3 The Administrative Judge also found that Ms. Wil-
son failed to show she had exhausted her administrative
remedies with the OSC—despite Ms. Wilson providing the
letter notice from OSC that its investigation into her com-
plaint was closed—because Ms. Wilson failed to provide ei-
ther a copy of her OSC complaint or an affidavit or other
sworn statement in response to the Administrative Judge’s
jurisdictional orders. To the extent the Administrative
Judge erred in determining that Ms. Wilson failed to ex-
haust her administrative remedy, that error was harmless.
The Administrative Judge went on to correctly find that
Ms. Wilson’s allegations did not constitute protected whis-
tleblower disclosures or activity, as discussed infra.
Case: 24-1355 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 5 of 7 --

WILSON v. MSPB 6
exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right relat-
ing to whistleblowing, i.e, retaliation for seeking to remedy
a violation of [§] 2302(b)(8).” Id. However,
“[§] 2302(b)(9)(A)(ii) [of the WPEA], which is not included
in the list of prohibited personnel practices for which the
Board can issue corrective action, covers retaliation for ex-
ercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right other
than one seeking to remedy a violation of [§] 2302(b)(8),”
and this court has held that “[r]etaliation for filing those
other types of complaints is remediable through different
mechanisms, and not by an IRA appeal to the Board.” Id.
(collecting cases). For that reason, Ms. Wilson’s claims do
not present issues over which the Board has jurisdiction,4
and we must therefore affirm the Board’s dismissal.
Ms. Wilson appears to raise several new issues in her
petition to this court that she did not raise before the
Board, including defamation and fraud allegations. Pet.
Inf. Br. 2. These arguments are forfeited. See Bosley
v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 162 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(“A party in an MSPB proceeding must raise an issue be-
fore the administrative judge if the issue is to be preserved
for review in this court.”).
Ms. Wilson also contends that “counsel in my response
did not due, [sic] due diligence as far as proceedings and
submissions and I’m asking for a review to be able to ad-
dress my appeal.” Pet. Inf. Br. 2. This argument was also
not raised before the Board and is undeveloped, and thus
4 Nor did Ms. Wilson’s allegations disclose concerns,
outside of the challenge to her own non-selection, about the
VA’s hiring practices that may have fallen within the
meaning of § 2302(b)(8). Cf. Young, 961 F.3d at 1329–30.
Ms. Wilson’s contentions to the Board relate to the VA’s
treatment only towards herself, which do not qualify as
protected whistleblower disclosures or activity falling
within the Board’s IRA jurisdiction, as discussed supra.
Case: 24-1355 Document: 19 Page: 6 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 6 of 7 --

WILSON v. MSPB 7
is forfeited as well. See Rodriguez v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs.,
8 F.4th 1290, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“An issue that is
merely alluded to and not developed as an argument in a
party’s brief is deemed waived.”). Additionally, “[w]e are
not a trial court and . . . [o]ur authority is limited to a re-
view of the Board’s decision.” Rowe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
802 F.2d 434, 437 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding that a litigant
is bound by actions of his counsel where counsel missed a
filing deadline).5
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Wilson’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
5 Moreover, to the extent this contention relates to
Ms. Wilson’s attorney’s failure to respond to the Adminis-
trative Judge’s first jurisdictional order, this did not impact
the outcome of her MSPB proceeding. Her counsel re-
sponded to the Administrative Judge’s show cause order
and the VA’s motion to dismiss, and it does not appear that
the Administrative Judge penalized her for that lack of re-
sponse to the first order. See Appx. 2–4.
Case: 24-1355 Document: 19 Page: 7 Filed: 09/05/2024

-- 7 of 7 --