Patricia Wise v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary
955 F.3d 430
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background
- Patricia Wise sued the VA in 2011 under the Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination and retaliation; the case was dismissed with the district court retaining jurisdiction to enforce a settlement.
- In 2016, after a magistrate settlement conference, the parties put settlement terms on the record: Wise would apply for OPM disability retirement; if granted the VA would pay $150,000; while the application was pending she would continue EEO exhaustion; if disability retirement were granted she would dismiss EEO claims and give a general release (except OWCP claims).
- During the conference the VA clarified it would not agree to duplicate FECA (OWCP) wage payments while also paying the $150,000; Wise agreed to the terms so long as she could continue OWCP medical claims.
- Wise later sought enforcement; she was granted OPM disability retirement in 2017 but did not elect it and remained on FECA benefits. The district court held the $150,000 was contingent on electing disability retirement, ordered her to submit election paperwork, and denied reconsideration; Wise appealed.
- The VA argued the parties mutually mistaken about a central premise—that the settlement could require Wise to elect disability retirement and thus waive FECA wage benefits—potentially making the agreement illegal under FECA regulations; Wise raised illegality late and the district court found forfeiture.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a mutual mistake occurred and, if so, whether the settlement must be rescinded; it upheld that the district court had jurisdiction and that the district court’s read of the agreement (that payment was contingent on election) was not clearly erroneous or forfeited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court lacked jurisdiction because FECA bars review | Wise: FECA/§8128 bars judicial relief over OWCP/FECA-related matters so court lacked jurisdiction to enforce settlement terms that affect FECA rights | VA: Court retained ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlement; §8128 does not strip jurisdiction to enforce settlements so long as it does not review OWCP benefit determinations | Court: District court had jurisdiction (inherent power + express retention); §8128 did not bar enforcement jurisdiction over the settlement |
| Construction: Is $150,000 payable without Wise electing disability retirement? | Wise: $150,000 was a settlement of her discrimination/retaliation claims and should be payable without forcing immediate election away from FECA | VA: Parties agreed $150,000 was conditioned on Wise’s eligibility and election of disability retirement; settlement limited FECA wage recovery until retirement | Court: Affirmed that $150,000 was contingent on retiring on disability; Wise forfeited challenge and did not show clear error |
| Forfeiture/reconsideration: Was Wise barred from asserting illegality/other defenses post-judgment? | Wise: She later argued she should receive $150,000 while continuing FECA; raised illegality and alternative relief in reconsideration/appeal | VA: Wise raised affirmative defenses too late; district court did not err in finding forfeiture | Court: Forfeiture applied to many arguments (inadequate briefing/timing); district court did not abuse discretion denying reconsideration on those grounds |
| Enforceability: Should the settlement be rescinded for mutual mistake or illegal promise? | Wise: Settlement is valid and enforceable as read; she retains choice between FECA and retirement but wants immediate payment without electing retirement | VA: Parties may have mutually mistaken that settlement could require election away from FECA; if agreement impermissibly required waiver of FECA wage rights it may be illegal and rescindable | Court: Vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes on mutual mistake and whether rescission is warranted (illegal promises not enforced) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for enforcement of settlements)
- Bell v. Schexnayder, 36 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 1994) (district court’s inherent power to enforce settlements)
- Mid-South Towing Co. v. Har-Win, Inc., 733 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1984) (mutual mistake can justify rescission; evidentiary hearing required on validity)
- Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72 (1982) (illegal promises will not be enforced under federal law)
- Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) (statutory withdrawal of jurisdiction deprives courts of review)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (only Congress may define lower federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2004) (failure to adequately brief an issue on appeal results in forfeiture)
- Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard for Rule 59(e) motions to reconsider)
- Sanders v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 553 F.3d 922 (5th Cir. 2008) (forfeiture for failure to present arguments)
- Strange v. Gulf & S. Am. S.S. Co., 495 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1974) (settlements of personal injury claims bind parties despite uncertainties in injury outcomes)