Skip to main content

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE

Harrow v. Department of Defense

Issues

Does 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), which sets a 60-day limit for a federal employee to appeal to the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a final decision rendered by the Merit Systems Protection Board, set a jurisdictional limit for the Federal Circuit?

This case asks the court to interpret whether the 60-day time limit for a federal employee to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit imposed by U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) amounts to a jurisdictional requirement that strictly bars claims brought after 60 days. Stuart Harrow maintains that the language in 28 U.S.C. § 1295, which grants jurisdiction to claims “pursuant to” § 7703(b)(1)(A), is simply a cross-reference and not conditional. Harrow further argues that Congress likely did not intend to create such a harsh bar when enacting § 7703(b)(1)(A), considering that many federal employee claims are brought without a lawyer. The Department of Defense counters that “pursuant to” should mean “conforming to,” which sets a conditional requirement, not a reference. The Department of Defense further notes that the Court’s precedents have already decided that § 7703(b)(1)(A) is a jurisdictional requirement; and, Harrow is attempting to artificially parse the statute to reach a favorable result. The case’s outcome will significantly impact methods of Congressional intent interpretations and federal appeal procedures.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the 60-day deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional.

Stuart R. Harrow (“Harrow”) was an employee of a sub-agency of the United States Department of Defense (“DOD”). Harrow v. Department of Defense, 2022 WL 1495611, 1 (Merit Systems Protection Bd.).

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to FEDERAL EMPLOYEE