On appeal, this court vacated that decision and remanded for the administrative judge to consider Ms. McLaughlin's January 28, 2019 submission, which it had improperly failed to consider the first time. McLaughlin v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 853 Fed.Appx. 648, 650 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (non-precedential). We did not take a position on the jurisdictional issue at that time, and only generally noted that the administrative judge's "legal analysis was admittedly flawed in at least certain respects." Id.
As noted by the district court, McLaughlin has filed multiple administrative charges and lawsuits against the DOJ alleging sex and race discrimination, as well as an EEO-related whistleblower appeal. See, e.g., McLaughlin v. Merit Systems Prot. Bd., 853 Fed.Appx. 648 (Fed. Cir. 2021); McLaughlin v. Barr, No. 19-cv-318 (M.D. N.C. 2019); McLaughlin v. Holder, 1:11-cv-01868 (D.D.C. 2011); McLaughlin v. Mukasey, No. 1:08-cv-1256 (D.D.C. 2008). On June 8, 2018, the district court dismissed McLaughlin's lawsuit.
Whether or not we could resolve that issue ourselves, we deem it appropriate in this case to leave the analysis to the Board in the first instance. See McLaughlin v. Merit Systems Prot. Bd., 853 Fed.Appx. 648, 650 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Hessami, 979 F.3d at 1371; Holderfield v. Merit Systems Prot. Bd., 326 F.3d 1207, 1209-10 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We vacate the Board's decision and remand the matter.