Genise A. Pennant v. Department of the Air Force

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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, L INN, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
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: 1 Filed: 11/21/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

PENNANT v. AIR FORCE 2
[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: 2 Filed: 11/21/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

PENNANT v. AIR FORCE 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
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.
November 21, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-2295 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 11/21/2024

-- 3 of 3 --