Whether a federal court lacks jurisdiction over a federal employee's complaint when the court has been made aware by the employee he had not been apprised his complaint of discrimination and Prohibited Personnel Practices should have been designated a mixed-case appealable to the Merit System Protection Board

QUESTION PRESENTED There are more than two million Americans who are federal employees. Both statutory and constitutional requirements protect the rights of these federal employees. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) provides the statutory procedural protections for this workforce. One agency born from the CSRA is the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). It was created to protect the Merit System Principles as well as to provide for a workplace free of improper adverse personnel actions, more frequently referred to as Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPPs). The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause provides the constitutional provision for federal employees. The Due Process clause bestows a property interest in continual federal employment. In other words, an employee cannot be deprived of their property interest (their job) without the agency adhering to due process. An adverse employment action done wrong is a Prohibited Personnel Practice, therefore it is imperative federal agency employers follow the statutory and constitutional provisions when issuing discipline to an employee. If the employee is not made fully aware of the possible paths that s/he may take regarding their complaint/appeal by the agency, EEO counselor, or administrative law judge, the employee’s complaint/appeal could end up in the wrong jurisdiction. The question presented is: Whether a federal court lacks jurisdiction over a federal employee’s complaint when the court has been ii made aware by the employee he had not been apprised his complaint of discrimination and Prohibited Personnel Practices should have been designated a mixed-case appealable to the Merit System Protection Board.