Thomas H. Davidson, Jr. v. United States Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas H. Davidson, Jr. v. United States Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Miller v. DVA (cafc, 2020-12-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. DVA
Fed. Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
Cir. 2011); Davidson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223, 224 (Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
This limitation to our jurisdiction is also explained in our Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants: “This court does not have jurisdiction to review cases involving bona fide claims of discrimination based on race, sex, age, national origin, or handicap that were raised before and considered by the [Board].” Accordingly, we can only review a mixed case “if the petitioner filed an explicit waiver of the claim of discrimination.” Davidson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223, 224 (Fed.Cir.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCoy v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, a case which was presented to the [Board] as a mixed case will be heard by this court if the petitioner files an explicit waiver of the claim of discrimination.” Davidson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223, 223-24 (Fed.Cir.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stribling v. Department of Education
Fed. Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Ordinarily, this court has “no jurisdiction over the merits of a mixed case, ie., one involving an adverse action and a claim of discrimination,” unless “the petitioner files an explicit waiver of the claim of discrimination.” Davidson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223, 223-24 (Fed.Cir.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tina M. Stephens v. Dept. Of the Treasury
Fed. Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
We, however, will hear a “mixed case” (i.e., one involving an adverse action and a claim of discrimination) “if the petitioner filed an explicit waiver of the claim of discrimination.” Davidson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223, 224 (Fed.Cir.1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Janice L. Yorkowitz v. Department of Treasury
Fed. Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Davidson v. United States Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223, 224 (Fed.Cir.1994).
cited Cited "see" Allison v. Department of Transportation
Fed. Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davidson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223 (Fed.Cir.1994).
discussed Cited "see" Thurston v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Fed. Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davidson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223, 223-24 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“this court held that it had no jurisdiction over the merits of a mixed case, i.e., one involving an adverse action and a claim of discrimination”) (citing Williams v. Dep’t of the Army, 715 F.2d 1485 (Fed.Cir.1983)).
cited Cited "see" Townsend v. Department of the Army
Fed. Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davidson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223 (Fed.Cir.1994).
cited Cited "see" Clay v. United States Postal Service
Fed. Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davidson v. United States Postal Serv., 24 F.3d 223, 224 (Fed.Cir.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas H. DAVIDSON, Jr., Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent
94-3013.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
May 13, 1994.
24 F.3d 223
Thomas H. Davidson, Jr., submitted pro se., Brian M. Reimer, U.S. Postal Service, of Washington, DC, submitted for respondent. Steven L. Schooner, David M. Cohen and Jeanne E. Davidson, Attys., Dept, of Justice of Washington, DC, represented respondent.
Nies, Newman, Rader.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

NIES, Circuit Judges.

Thomas H. Davidson, Jr., appeals the affirmance of his removal from the United States Postal Service for unsatisfactory attendance and failure to adhere to the required work schedule. Before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Mr. Davidson asserted a claim of discrimination. In Williams v. Department of the Army, 715 F.2d 1485 (Fed.Cir.1983), this court held that it had no jurisdiction over the merits of a mixed case, i.e., one involving an adverse[*224] action and a claim of discrimination. However, a case which was presented to the MSPB as a mixed case will be heard by this court if the petitioner files an explicit waiver of the claim of discrimination. The government argues that simply by appealing to this court, Mr. Davidson has waived his discrimination claim. We disagree. As held in Daniels v. United States Postal Service, 726 F.2d 723, 724 (Fed.Cir.1984), a waiver of a claim of discrimination must be by an express written statement.

Mr. Davidson filed no statement that he waived his claim of discrimination on the merits. Inappropriately, the waiver he filed indicates he seeks review of the MSPB’s dismissal of his case for lack of jurisdiction or untimeliness, issues not involved at this stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Petitioner file with the court within 15 days of the date hereof either (1) a request for this court to proceed which must be accompanied by the appropriate waiver, or (2) a request for transfer to a particular United States district court.

In the absence of a timely response, the appeal is subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution.