Green v. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (Afl-Cio)
287 F.R.D. 107
D.D.C.2012Background
- Green sued AFL-CIO and Mark Zobrisky alleging discrimination/retaliation under Title VII and ADA, plus contract, emotional distress, and wrongful termination claims.
- Judge Urbina granted summary judgment to defendants based on a settlement agreement that released all claims related to Green’s employment and provided monetary relief.
- The District Court denied Green's Rule 60(b)(3) motion for relief from judgment, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment as the settlement was binding.
- Green then moved under Rule 60(b)(3) alleging fraud and misrepresentation by defendants; the court denied, finding insufficient proof of fraud and impact on the case.
- Green now moves under Rule 60(b)(6), arguing fraud on the court and the invalidity of the settlement; the court evaluates whether extraordinary circumstances justify relief.
- The court concludes Green cannot show extraordinary circumstances and denies relief; Green accepted monetary benefits and cannot repudiate the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief is warranted for alleged fraud on the court | Green asserts defendants committed fraud and misrepresentation to the court. | Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances and does not permit relitigation of fraud already addressed; claims are not appropriate under this provision. | Denied; no extraordinary circumstances shown. |
| Whether the settlement agreement is invalid due to lack of meeting of the minds | Green argues he did not knowingly and voluntarily assent to the settlement. | Green signed the agreement acknowledging voluntary and informed execution; no evidence of duress or misrepresentation. | Denied; settlement validity not open to Rule 60(b)(6) relief. |
| Whether Green can rely on Rule 60(b)(6) to revisit fraud/misrepresentation raised in Rule 60(b)(3) | Fraud allegations should be reconsidered under 60(b)(6). | Rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used to relitigate matters already denied under Rule 60(b)(3). | Denied; grounds are mutually exclusive and 60(b)(6) not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief limited to extraordinary circumstances; mutually exclusive with other grounds)
- Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(b)(6) cannot relitigate prior 60(b) claims)
- Gains v. Cont’l Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 865 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (attacks on settlement require showing of invalidity and benefit-obligation balance)
- Schmidt v. Shah, 696 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2010) (post-settlement attacks limited when benefits accepted)
- 8 Gilcrease Lane, 668 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2009) (burden on party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) to show entitlement)