The Washington Post

Supreme Court unanimous: Process for discrimination claims was too complicated

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld a former federal worker’s right to appeal a discrimination case in U.S. district court despite a lower court’s determination that the matter should be taken up in a special federal claims court. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kloeckner v. Solis reversed an appeals court’s earlier decision. 

Carolyn Kloeckner, who alleged unlawful sex and age discrimination by the Labor Department, first took her claim to the Merit Systems Protection Board. But she later withdrew that complaint to focus on a related case she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

A judge for the commission terminated the woman’s case based on “bad-faith discovery conduct” and returned the matter to the Labor Department, which ultimately ruled against Kloeckner, according to the Supreme Court’s majority opinion. 

Kloeckner went back to the Merit Systems Protection Board with an appeal, but the board dismissed her case on procedural grounds because she had missed a deadline for re-filing the claim she withdrew earlier. 

Kloeckner took her case to district court, where a judge determined that the review belonged in circuit court, due to the fact that the board had based its decision on a procedural matter. The court said it could only rule on merit-based decisions in discrimination cases.       

The Supreme Court disagreed. 

“A federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the MSPB violates an antidiscrimination statute … should seek judicial review in district court, not in the Federal Circuit,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote on behalf of the majority. “That is so whether the MSPB decided her case on procedural grounds or instead on the merits.” 

The National Treasury Employees Union released a statement today applauding the court’s decision, saying: “It is important that federal employees have broader appeal rights in connection with these very serious personnel matters than the narrow review employees would have received in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” 

For more Federal Eye, visit PostPolitics and The Fed Page.

Follow Josh Hicks on Twitter or subscribe his Facebook page


Josh Hicks covers Maryland politics and government. He previously anchored the Post’s Federal Eye blog, focusing on federal accountability and workforce issues.



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Videos curated for you.
Play Videos
What can babies teach students?
Unconventional warfare with a side of ale
A veteran finds healing on a dog sled
Play Videos
A fighter pilot helmet with 360 degrees of sky
Is fencing the answer to brain health?
Scenes from Brazil's Carajás Railway
Play Videos
How a hacker group came to Washington
The woman behind the Nats’ presidents ‘Star Wars’ makeover
How hackers can control your car from miles away
Play Videos
Philadelphia's real signature sandwich
Full disclosure: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1 ghoul
Europe's migrant crisis, explained
Next Story
Josh Hicks · December 10, 2012

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.