Paulette Charles v. John McHugh, 613 F. App'x 330

Charles settled Title VII claims with the Army in mediation, with counsel representing Charles and the Agreement requiring dismissal of discrimination claims in exchange for monetary and other benefits.
Charles later sought to rescind the settlement, alleging she lacked competence to sign and was coerced during negotiations.
The EEOC denied rescission, and both EEOC decisions advised that Charles could file a civil action in district court within 90 days.
Charles filed suit in the Western District of Texas seeking rescission under Title VII jurisdiction; the Army moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as well as on the merits.
The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and Charles appealed, arguing the district court had Title VII jurisdiction and/or that the EEOC determinations created jurisdiction.
The court concludes the claims are contract-based rescission claims, not Title VII claims, and that Congress has not waived sovereign immunity for such contract claims, so the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 2000e-16(c) waive sovereign immunity for contract-based rescission claims?	Charles contends Title VII waiver covers rescission claims tied to the settlement.	The Army argues the waiver does not cover contract rescission claims; sovereign immunity remains intact for such claims.	No; rescission claims are contracts, not Title VII claims, and § 2000e-16(c) does not create jurisdiction.
Can EEOC determinations or boilerplate language confer district court jurisdiction for such claims?	EEOC decisions allegedly permit civil action, implying jurisdiction.	Boilerplate language and regulations do not authorize new jurisdiction or waive sovereign immunity.	No; EEOC language does not create jurisdiction or a statutory waiver.
Is Patterson v. Spellings controlling on district court jurisdiction for contract-based settlement claims?	Patterson supports jurisdiction for breach of settlement claims against the government.	Patterson is distinguishable; jurisdiction cannot be created for contract claims solely because another forum is unavailable.	No; Patterson does not authorize jurisdiction here; contract claims fall outside Title VII’s waiver.

Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (sovereign immunity requires unequivocal statutory waiver)
United States v. Transocean Air Lines, Inc., 386 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1967) (government consent to sue must be explicit)
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (explicit waivers must be clearly expressed)
United States v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity generally bars suits without a waiver)
Geithner v. United States, 703 F.3d 335 (4th Cir. 2013) (Title VII waiver does not extend to settlement-contract claims)
Frahm v. United States, 492 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2007) (waiver does not extend to monetary breach of settlement agreements)
Lindstrom v. United States, 510 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2007) (Congress did not consent to enforcement of settlement agreements via Title VII waiver)