DRAUGHN v. ARMY , No. 24-1430 (Fed. Cir. 2024)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 24-1430 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 04/12/2024 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ VELESA DRAUGHN, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent ______________________ 2024-1430 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-0752-17-0527-I-1. ______________________ Before CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Following this court’s February 22, 2024 show cause order, Velesa Draughn urges this court not to dismiss or transfer this matter, while the Department of the Army urges transfer. The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the Army’s removal of Ms. Draughn, rejecting her affirmative defenses that the removal was based on disability discrimination and retaliation for protected Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) activity. Ms. Draughn seeks judicial Case: 24-1430 Document: 10 2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/12/2024 DRAUGHN v. ARMY review of the MSPB’s decision and her affirmative defenses. “Because [Ms. Draughn] complained of a personnel action serious enough to appeal to the MSPB”—here, her removal—“and alleged that the personnel action was based on,” among other things, “discrimination, [s]he brought a mixed case.” Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 432 (2017) (cleaned up); see 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). “Judicial review of such a case lies in district court.” Perry, 582 U.S. at 432. Under the circumstances, we agree that transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (where the employment action appears to have occurred) is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: This matter and all case filings are transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. FOR THE COURT April 12, 2024 Date

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.