Barbara Murchison v. Michael Astrue, 466 F. App'x 225

Murchison, an SSA employee, sought enforcement of an EEOC order returning her to her prior position or its equivalent.
She also claimed SSA discriminated by failing to promote her to two positions within ORCICA/Office of Communications.
After internal EEO filings, an AJ found SSA discriminated in various respects but denied Promotion Claims; Enforcement claim was unresolved.
OFO later affirmed the AJ, ordering SSA to restore Murchison, and SSA claimed compliance in 2008, which Murchison never received.
Murchison filed suit in district court Oct. 2008; SSA moved for summary judgment on all counts; district court granted on all counts except Enforcement was dismissed, and Rule 60(b) motion was denied.
During appeal, the EEOC conceded misrepresentation of compliance; Rule 60(b) relief motion was granted on appeal, and remand instructed to enforce the OFO order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Enforcement Claim was properly dismissed	Murchison contends the district court erred by dismissing Enforcement	SSA argues no preconditions under §1614.503(g) were met to file enforcement	Enforcement claim vacated; remanded for enforcement after Rule 60(b) relief
Whether Rule 60(b) relief was appropriate	Murchison shows extraordinary circumstances due to SSA/EEOC misrepresentations	SSA contends no basis for relief under Rule 60(b) standards	Rule 60(b) motion granted on appeal; remand for enforcement
Whether Murchison proved pretext for the Director of ORCICA and Office of Communications promotions	Murchison argues SSA’s internal promotion policy was pretext to favor internal candidate	SSA asserts non-discriminatory internal-promotion rationale and smooth-transition policy	Promotion claims affirmed; no pretext found
Whether discovery denial precluded reasonable opposition to summary judgment on Promotion Claims	Murchison needed discovery to show pretext for promotions	Discovery requests were vague or would not create genuine issues	Discovery denial affirmed; summary judgment on Promotion Claims affirmed

L.J. v. Wilbon, 633 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2011) (Rule 60(b) standards and abuse-of-discretion review)
Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204 (4th Cir. 1984) (threshold Rule 60(b) requirements)
Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., 500 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1991) (caution on broad Rule 60(b) interpretations)
Shannon v. Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 1996) (pretext and promotion decisions; removal from pool issue)
Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2009) ( Rule 56(f)/56(d) discovery standards)
Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2006) (scope of Rule 56(f) motions and supplemental discovery)
Margoles v. Johns, 798 F.2d 1069 (7th Cir. 1986) (extraordinary circumstances in Rule 60(b)(6))
DeJarnette v. Corning Inc., 133 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 1998) (judicial deference to personnel decisions; not a supervisory role)
MM ex rel. DM & EM v. School Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2002) (alternate grounds to affirm judgments)
A Helping Hand, LLC v. Balt. Cnty., Md., 515 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2008) (abandonment of arguments in appellate briefing)