Cummings v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
865 F.3d 844
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Noel Cummings worked ~27.5 years for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority and sued for pay and promotion discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and equal protection violations.
- Parties reached a settlement (Feb 4, 2015): Authority paid $45,000, imposed two six‑month suspensions at $600/month under specified conditions, and Cummings waived reinstatement and released all employment‑related claims.
- Cummings later asked the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System whether the settlement payments counted as “earnable salary” for retirement service credit; OPS said they did not.
- On July 15, 2016, Cummings moved in district court to vacate the settlement judgment and reinstate her complaint, claiming mistake/misrepresentation about retirement credit consequences.
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion as time‑barred under the one‑year limit for motions based on mistake or fraud; Cummings appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cummings can vacate the settlement under Rule 60(b)(1) for mistake/inadvertence | Cummings agreed only to obtain 30 years retirement credit; she misunderstood that settlement payments would be "earnable salary" | Settlement mistake claim is governed by Rule 60(b)(1) and must be brought within one year of judgment; she filed late | Motion under 60(b)(1) is time‑barred; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether recovery is available under Rule 60(b)(3) for fraud/misrepresentation by the Authority | The Authority knew payments would not count as earnable salary and misled Cummings | Alleged fraud/misrepresentation is subject to the one‑year limit for 60(b)(3) motions; Cummings filed after one year | 60(b)(3) claim is untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether relief can be obtained under Rule 60(b)(5) as changed law or facts | Cummings argued equitable unfairness of enforcing settlement now | No change in law or facts; claim alleges only misunderstanding of existing law, so 60(b)(5) inapplicable | 60(b)(5) relief unavailable |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) provides an equitable escape hatch | Cummings framed the motion as equitable relief from an unjust result | 60(b)(6) cannot be used to evade the one‑year limits for claims grounded in mistake or fraud | 60(b)(6) relief denied; motion fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (finality of judgments is a strong public policy)
- Waifersong, Ltd. Inc. v. Classic Music Vending, 976 F.2d 290 (6th Cir. 1992) (settlements should be honored and final judgments preserved)
- GenCorp, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 477 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(b) provides exclusive, discrete grounds for vacatur)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (60(b)(5) requires a significant change in law or fact to justify prospective vacatur)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (excusable neglect principles and limits on invoking catchall relief to bypass other Rule 60(b) grounds)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (district court’s retained jurisdiction to enforce settlements does not substitute for Rule 60(b) vacatur)