Krystle M. Tilford v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
KRYSTLE M. TILFORD,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1682
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. NY-0752-24-0009-I-1.
______________________
Before LOURIE and HUGHES, Circuit Judges, and KLEEH,
Chief District Judge.†
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Krystle M. Tilford petitions for review of a final deci-
sion of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing the
appeal of her removal from the United States Postal Ser-
vice. Ms. Tilford alleged her removal was the result of pro-
hibited discrimination based on her requests for reasonable
† Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge,
United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Case: 25-1682 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 1 of 2 --

TILFORD v. MSPB 2
accommodations related to a medical condition and her sta-
tus as a caregiver to a child with autism. In her “Statement
Concerning Discrimination” filed with this court, Ms. Til-
ford certified she did “not wish to abandon [her] discrimi-
nation claims.” Dkt. No. 5 at 1, 3. The government argues
that, without a waiver of her discrimination claims, we lack
jurisdiction over Ms. Tilford’s arguments. As such, the gov-
ernment requests we transfer the appeal to the Southern
District of New York.
Federal district courts, not this court, have jurisdiction
over mixed-case appeals, or appeals “filed with the [Board]
that allege[ ] that an appealable agency action was ef-
fected, in whole or in part, because of discrimination on the
basis of race; color; religion; sex; national origin; disability;
age; genetic information; or pregnancy, childbirth, or re-
lated medical conditions.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(a)(2); see
Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). Be-
cause Ms. Tilford argues her removal was based on unlaw-
ful discrimination, we transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631 to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, where the employment action oc-
curred.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This matter and all case filings are transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
February 9, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1682 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 2 of 2 --