This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Blackwell v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Ms. Debra Blackwell appeals from a United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) grant of summary judgment denying her claim under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), that she was allegedly paid less than a male colleague for working overtime. Blackwell v. United States, 171 Fed. Cl. 682 (2024) (Decision). Applying the test outlined in Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195 (1974), the Claims Court determined that Ms. Blackwell failed to demonstrate that her position and her colleague’s position required “equal skill, effort, and responsibility” and were “performed under similar working conditions.” The Claims Court also determined that, even if Ms. Blackwell had made a prima facie showing of a violation of the EPA, the government adequately rebutted her claim. Because we agree with the Claims Court that Ms. Blackwell did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to her prima facie case and, in any event, the government successfully raised its affirmative defense, we affirm.
Sutula v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Eric J. Sutula challenges the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“Board”) dismissal of his termination appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Board affirmed an initial determination that Mr. Sutula failed to non-frivolously allege that he satisfied one of the definitions of “employee” set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1), which is a requirement for Board jurisdiction. Because we determine Mr. Sutula non-frivolously alleged that he was an “employee,” we reverse and remand for a jurisdictional hearing.