In the case of Carolyn M. Kloeckner v. Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor in 2012, the U.S Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Kloeckner, a former employee at the Department of Labor who was fired for alleged poor performance and misconduct. After her termination, she filed a complaint with both the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that she had been subjected to sex and age discrimination as well as hostile work environment which led to her dismissal. The MSPB dismissed her case on procedural grounds without addressing these claims directly; this decision was upheld by an appellate court stating that federal district courts lacked jurisdiction over "mixed cases" like hers - those involving both discriminatory allegations and appeals from MSPB decisions about civil service employment matters. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation: Justice Elena Kagan wrote for unanimous court saying that such mixed cases should indeed be heard by federal district courts not Federal Circuit Courts regardless if they were dismissed on procedural or merits-based grounds by MSPB.

In the dissenting opinion for Carolyn M. Kloeckner v. Hilda L. Solis, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the majority's interpretation of jurisdictional rules was incorrect and overly simplistic. He contended that it failed to account for the complexity of federal employment law procedures and could potentially lead to confusion in future cases involving mixed-case complaints (those involving both discrimination claims and adverse action appeals). According to Justice Alito, a more nuanced approach would be necessary where different types of claims should be directed towards appropriate courts based on their nature rather than assuming all such cases fall under district court jurisdiction as per majority’s view.