Kerr v. Jewell, No. 14-36000 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a former FWS employee, filed suit contending that she was discriminated and retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and retaliated against in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), 5 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. The district court dismissed the WPA claim for lack of jurisdiction based on plaintiffs failure to present the claim to the MSPB. The court held that the statutory scheme governing the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), Pub. L. No. 95-4545, 92 Stat. 1111, and the WPA did not authorize plaintiff to file her WPA claim in district court without first presenting it to the MSPB. The court also held that, although a federal district court can exercise federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, that general grant of jurisdiction does not apply where it is fairly discernible that Congress intended a statutory review scheme to provide the exclusive avenue to judicial review. Therefore, the scheme precluded the district court from exercising original jurisdiction over plaintiff's WPA claim. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand to the MSPB. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Whistleblower Protection Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claim under the Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”) brought against her former employer, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, based on plaintiff’s failure to present the WPA claim to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The panel held that the statutory scheme governing the Civil Service Reform Act and the WPA did not authorize plaintiff to file her WPA claim in district court without first presenting it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The panel further held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s WPA claim because the Merit Systems Protection Board provides the exclusive avenue for obtaining judicial review of a WPA claim. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand her WPA claim to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.