Kloeckner v. Solis (2012)
green
· 814 citation events
across 59 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201220192026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
Federal Home Loan Bank of Bost v. Moody's Corporation (2016)
But see Kloeckner v. Solis, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 596 , 607 n. 4, 184 L.Ed.2d 433 (2012) (stating that “even the most formidable argument concerning [a] statute’s .purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in [that] statute's text”). i. Statutory Text In applying these teachings, we focus first on the text.
stating that “even the most formidable argument concerning [a] statute’s .purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in [that] statute's text”
green
Anthony Perry v. Gina Raimondo (2024)
Kloeckner, 568 U.S. at 50 (“[M]ixed cases” are “those appealable to the MSPB and alleging discrimination.”); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302 (a)(2) (defining a “mixed case appeal” as one in which an employee “alleges that an appealable agency action was effected, in whole or in part, because of discrimination”).
“[M]ixed cases” are “those appealable to the MSPB and alleging discrimination.”
green
Adam Robinson v. DHS Office of Inspector General (2023)
See Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 56 (2012) (“A federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the MSPB violates an antidiscrimination statute listed in § 7702(a)(1) should seek judicial review in district court.”).
“A federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the MSPB violates an antidiscrimination statute listed in § 7702(a)(1) should seek judicial review in district court.”
green
Brandon v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Elections (2019)
Cf. Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 , 55 n.4 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”).
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”
green
Pleasant v. MSPB (2025)
Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 56 (2012) (“[W]hether the MSPB decided her case on procedural grounds or instead on the merits,” “[a] federal employee who claims that an action appealable to the MSPB violates a[ covered] antidiscrimination statute . . . should seek judi- cial review in district court, not in the Federal Circuit.”); Perry, 582 U.S. at 432–33 (rejecting “a distinction between MSPB merits and procedural decisions, on the one hand, and the Board’s jurisdictiona…
green
Joseph Simone v. Secretary of Homeland Security (2025)
Specifically, the provisions prohibit the federal government from discriminating based on a “handicapping condition . . . under 11 The CSRA allows a federal employee subjected to an adverse personnel action to, among other things, “appeal [his] agency’s decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 43 (2012); see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512 , 7701.
green
Stevenson v. DVA (2025)
Those so-called “mixed cases” “shall be filed in district court.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 50 (2012); see 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys.
green
Craft v. MSPB (2025)
See Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 , 430–32 (2017); Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012).
green
Scott v. MSPB (2023)
Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 56 (2012) (“A federal employee who claims that an agency action ap- pealable to the MSPB violates an antidiscrimination stat- ute . . . should seek judicial review in district court, not in the Federal Circuit.”).
“A federal employee who claims that an agency action ap- pealable to the MSPB violates an antidiscrimination stat- ute . . . should seek judicial review in district court, not in the Federal Circuit.”
green
INTL FCStone Financial Inc. v. Louise Farmer (2020)
See Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449, 460 (2012) (“[P]etitioners’ purposive argument simply cannot overcome the force of the plain text.”); Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 , 55 n.4 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”).
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”
green
INTL FCStone Financial Inc. v. Louise Farmer (2020)
See Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449, 460 (2012) (“[P]etitioners’ purposive argument simply cannot overcome the force of the plain text.”); Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 , 55 n.4 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”).
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”
green
INTL FCStone Financial Inc. v. Louise Farmer (2020)
See Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449, 460 (2012) (“[P]etitioners’ purposive argument simply cannot overcome the force of the plain text.”); Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 , 55 n.4 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”).
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”
green
Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA (2016)
See Kloeckner v. Solis, 133 S. Ct. 596 , 607 n.4 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”); Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 132 S. Ct. 1702, 1710 (2012) (“[N]o legislation pursues its purposes at all costs, and petitioners’ purposive argument simply cannot overcome the force of the plain text.”) (internal citation omitted); Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 261 (1993) (“…
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”
green
SW General, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (2015)
We will not take the opposite tack of allowing ambiguous legislative history to muddy clear statutory language.”); Kloeckner v. Solis , — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 596 , 607 n. 4, 184 L.Ed.2d 433 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”).
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”
green
Gerald Krafsur v. Michael Davenport (2013)
See supra at 1034-35; see also Kloeckner v. Solis, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 596, 600 , 184 L.Ed.2d 433 (2012) (“The Civil Service Reform Act ... provides graduated procedural protections depending on an action’s severity.”).
“The Civil Service Reform Act ... provides graduated procedural protections depending on an action’s severity.”
green
Sheridan v. Haaland (2024)
Id., 48 F.4th at 242–43 (4th Cir. 2022); see Kloeckner, 568 U.S. at 44 (“When an employee complains of a personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB and alleges that the action was based on discrimination, she is said (by pertinent regulation) to have brought a “mixed case.”). “[T]he CSRA constitutes the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of federal employment,” see Hall v. Clinton, 235 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2000), “even if relief may be available under othe…
“When an employee complains of a personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB and alleges that the action was based on discrimination, she is said (by pertinent regulation) to have brought a “mixed case.”
green
Kathrina Alexander v. Does (2025)
See Kloeckner, 568 U.S. at 44 (“If (but only if) the action is particularly serious—involving, for example, a removal from employment or a reduction in grade or pay—the affected employee has a right to appeal the agency’s decision to the MSPB, an independent adjudicator of federal employment disputes.”).5 5 At least one circuit court of appeals has held that “mixed cases” include only those personnel actions that are directly appealable to the MSPB, e.g., termination and Her…
“If (but only if) the action is particularly serious—involving, for example, a removal from employment or a reduction in grade or pay—the affected employee has a right to appeal the agency’s decision to the MSPB, an independent adjudicator of federal employment disputes.”
green
Hardyway v. McDonough (2022)
See also Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 54 (2012) (“‘[I]f at any time after the 120th day following [an employee's filing] with the Board . . . , there is no judicially reviewable action[,] . . an employee shall be entitled to file a civil action’ in district court under a listed antidiscrimination statute.”) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (e)(1)(B))).
“‘[I]f at any time after the 120th day following [an employee's filing] with the Board . . . , there is no judicially reviewable action[,] . . an employee shall be entitled to file a civil action’ in district court under a listed antidiscrimination statute.”
No. 108 at 10.) As the Supreme Court has explained, this escape-hatch provision exists “to save employees from being held in perpetual uncertainty by Board inaction.” See Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 54 (2012) (internal quotations omitted).
internal quotations omitted
green
Donald Fitzgibbon v. United States Postal Service (2026)
The Civil Service Reform Act provides a general legal framework “for evaluating personnel actions taken against federal employees.” See Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012); see also 5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.
green
Robb v. Vilsack (2025)
Dec. 4, 2024). 25 By default, appeals of MSPB decisions “should be filed in the Federal Circuit.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 49 (2012).
green
Wiegand v. Wormuth (2025)
A mixed case is one where “an employee complains of a personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB and alleges that the action was based on discrimination.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302 (2012)).
citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302 (2012)
green
Wiegand v. Wormuth (2025)
A mixed case is one where “an employee complains of a personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB and alleges that the action was based on discrimination.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302 (2012)).
non-precedential
green
Robb v. Vilsack (2025)
Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 423 (2017) (quoting Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012)).
green
Sturgen v. Garland Attorney General (2024)
See Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012) (“If (but only if) the action is particularly serious—involving, for example, a removal from employment . . . —the affected employee has a right to appeal the agency’s decision to the MSPB, an independent adjudicator of federal employment disputes.”). 5 See Garcia v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322, 1328 (Fed Cir. 2006) (en banc) (explaining that to establish the MSPB’s jurisdiction over an involuntary retirement claim, an…
“If (but only if) the action is particularly serious—involving, for example, a removal from employment . . . —the affected employee has a right to appeal the agency’s decision to the MSPB, an independent adjudicator of federal employment disputes.”
green
Duniya v. Power (2023)
See id. (“If the MSPB upholds the personnel action . . . , the employee again has a choice: She may request additional administrative process, this time with the EEOC, or else she may seek judicial review.”).
“If the MSPB upholds the personnel action . . . , the employee again has a choice: She may request additional administrative process, this time with the EEOC, or else she may seek judicial review.”
green
State v. Robinson (2026)
But see King, 576 U.S. at 501 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“[Context] is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.”); Schwegmann Bros., 341 U.S. at 395 (Jackson, J., concurring) (“Resort to legislative history is only justified where the face of the Act is inescapably ambiguous[.]”); Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 , 55 n.4 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity [of] th…
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity [of] the statute’s text.”
green
Sidhant Sidhant v. Brison Swearingen, in his official capacity as Sheriff of the Clay County Justice Center, … (2026)
See Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 , 55 n.4 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity . . . in the statute’s text.”).
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity . . . in the statute’s text.”
green
Daniel Cardenas Parra v. Samuel Olson, Markwayne Mullin, Brison Swearingen, and Pamela Bondi (2026)
See Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 , 55 n.4 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity . . . in the statute’s text.”).
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity . . . in the statute’s text.”
See Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 , 55 n.4 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity . . . in the statute’s text.”).
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity . . . in the statute’s text.”
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (“CSRA”), 5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. “’establishes a framework for evaluating personnel actions taken against federal employees.’” Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 423 (2017) (quoting Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012)).
green
Kyle W. Shirley v. Gadyaces Serralta, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the United States Marsha… (2026)
Welcher- Butler v. Brennan, 619 Fed.Appx. 550, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 55 (2012)).1 Plaintiff’s appeal in this case involves claims that his removal was based, in part, on disability discrimination.
Id. at 426 , 434–37; see also Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 56 (2012) (“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.”).
“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.”
green
Vera Davis-Clewis v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2025)
A. Timeliness “The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 . . . establishes a framework for evaluating personnel actions taken against federal employees.” Kloechner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012).
green
Pamela D. Tucker v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2025)
Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012).
green
Wine v. Merit Systems Protection Board (2025)
The Court does 4 not attempt to provide a comprehensive description of that regime but instead describes only the 5 aspects of it that are necessary to address Defendants’ challenges to subject matter jurisdiction in 6 this case. 7 The CSRA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., “establishes a framework for evaluating personnel 8 actions taken against federal employees . . . [that] provides graduated procedural protections 9 depending on an action’s severity.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.…
green
Thompson v. Averill (2025)
Dkt. # 46, at 2 (quoting Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 45 (2012)) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (a)(3)).
green
Johnson v. Little (2025)
Plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim Civil Service Reform Act The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) “establishes a framework for evaluating personnel actions taken against federal employees.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012); 5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.
green
Wiegand v. Wormuth (2025)
Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012) (citing 29 CFR § 1614.302 (2012)).
citing 29 CFR § 1614.302 (2012)
green
Coleman Jr. v. Pentagon Force Protection Agency (2025)
Zachariasiewicz, 48 F.4th at 243 (citing 5 US.C. § 7702(a) and Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44-45, 50 (2012).
green
Milleville v. Kennedy (2025)
The CSRA “‘establishes a framework for evaluating personnel actions taken against federal employees.’” Zachariasiewicz v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 48 F.4th 237, 242 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012)).
green
Nahmens v. Rollins (2025)
STANDARD OF LAW 11 The Civil Service Reform Act permits “mixed cases” where “an employee complains of a 12 personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB and alleges that the action was based on 13 discrimination.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012); 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(2).
green
Kobelia v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2025)
The CSRA “establishes a framework for evaluating personnel actions taken against federal employees.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012).
See Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012) (“ [The CSRA] provides graduated procedural protections depending on an action’s severity.”).
“ [The CSRA] provides graduated procedural protections depending on an action’s severity.”
See Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012) ("The Civil Service 11 Reform Act . . . establishes a framework for evaluating personnel actions taken against 12 federal employees.").
"The Civil Service 11 Reform Act . . . establishes a framework for evaluating personnel actions taken against 12 federal employees."
green
Lucas v. American Federation of Government Employees (2023)
See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101–35; see Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012) (“The [CSRA] establishes a framework for evaluating personnel actions taken against federal employees.”).
“The [CSRA] establishes a framework for evaluating personnel actions taken against federal employees.”
green
Kabrovich v. Mayorkas (2021)
“When an employee complains of a personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB and alleges that the action was based on discrimination, she is said … to have brought a ‘mixed case.’” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012); see also Valentine-Johnson v. Roche, 386 F.3d 800, 802 (6th Cir. 2004) (“A mixed case is one where a federal employee alleges that she suffered from an adverse agency action appealable to the [MSPB], and that the action was also based on discri…
“A mixed case is one where a federal employee alleges that she suffered from an adverse agency action appealable to the [MSPB], and that the action was also based on discrimination.”
green
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (2020)
See, e.g., Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 , 55 n.4 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”).
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”
green
Miller v. Zinke (2018)
Kloeckner , 568 U.S. at 44 -45 , 133 S.Ct. 596 . 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302 (a)(1), (2) ; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.154 .
"Miller timely appealed her removal to the Board."
See Kloeckner v. Solis, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 596 , 607 n. 4, 184 L.Ed.2d 433 (2012) (“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”); Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1702, 1710 , 182 L.Ed.2d 720 (2012) (“[N]o legislation pursues its purposes at all costs, and petitioners’ purposive argument simply cannot overcome the force of the plain text.”) (internal citation omitted); …
“[E]ven the most formidable argument concerning the statute’s purposes could not overcome the clarity we find in the statute’s text.”