Harrow v. Department of Defense
The Facts
Harrow, a former Department of Defense employee, filed an MSPB appeal of his termination outside the 120-day statutory deadline. The MSPB dismissed his appeal as untimely and the Federal Circuit affirmed, treating the deadline as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable tolling. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the deadline is jurisdictional or a claim-processing rule.
The Application
The Court applied the Wong framework to determine whether Congress had explicitly designated the 120-day deadline as jurisdictional by examining the statutory language and structure, finding no clear statement that the deadline was nonwaivable or beyond the MSPB's power to excuse. Because Congress had not unambiguously established the deadline as jurisdictional, the Court classified it as a claims-processing rule and therefore subject to equitable tolling when extraordinary circumstances beyond an employee's control prevented timely filing. This reclassification allowed Harrow's appeal to proceed if he could demonstrate such circumstances - a showing that would have been categorically impossible under the prior jurisdictional interpretation. The ruling effectively reopened the federal-employee appeal process for workers in comparable situations, replacing strict compliance requirements with a fact-specific equitable-tolling inquiry.
The Conclusion
**Decided May 16, 2024. The 9-0 ruling held the 120-day MSPB deadline is a claims-processing rule subject to equitable tolling.** Federal employees who miss the appeal deadline due to extraordinary circumstances may now seek tolling: a significant expansion of access to the MSPB appeal process, relevant to the wave of Trump-era federal employee termination litigation.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Harrow v. Department of Defense (2024) held 9-0 that the 120-day deadline for federal employees to appeal adverse employment actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional limit, and therefore may be subject to equitable tolling. The ruling allows MSPB to extend the deadline in appropriate circumstances where the employee was not at fault for missing it.
Facts
Harrow, a former Department of Defense employee, filed an MSPB appeal of his termination outside the 120-day statutory deadline. The MSPB dismissed his appeal as untimely and the Federal Circuit affirmed, treating the deadline as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable tolling. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the deadline is jurisdictional or a claim-processing rule.
Issue
Whether the 120-day deadline for federal employees to file Merit Systems Protection Board appeals of adverse employment actions is a jurisdictional limitation that cannot be waived or tolled, or a claims-processing rule subject to equitable exceptions.
Rule
Courts distinguish jurisdictional requirements (set by Congress, not subject to waiver or tolling) from claims-processing rules (subject to equitable tolling and waiver). United States v. Kwai Fun Wong (2015) held that the FTCA's statute of limitations is a claims-processing rule subject to equitable tolling. Congress must clearly state that a deadline is jurisdictional for courts to treat it as such.
Analysis
The Court applied the Wong framework to determine whether Congress had explicitly designated the 120-day deadline as jurisdictional by examining the statutory language and structure, finding no clear statement that the deadline was nonwaivable or beyond the MSPB's power to excuse. Because Congress had not unambiguously established the deadline as jurisdictional, the Court classified it as a claims-processing rule and therefore subject to equitable tolling when extraordinary circumstances beyond an employee's control prevented timely filing. This reclassification allowed Harrow's appeal to proceed if he could demonstrate such circumstances. A showing that would have been categorically impossible under the prior jurisdictional interpretation. The ruling effectively reopened the federal-employee appeal process for workers in comparable situations, replacing strict compliance requirements with a fact-specific equitable-tolling inquiry.
Conclusion
**Decided May 16, 2024. The 9-0 ruling held the 120-day MSPB deadline is a claims-processing rule subject to equitable tolling.** Federal employees who miss the appeal deadline due to extraordinary circumstances may now seek tolling. A significant expansion of access to the MSPB appeal process, relevant to the wave of Trump-era federal employee termination litigation.
Notes
OT2023. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support