Wu v. Haaland, 20-2067

Ms. Liming Wu, a DOI geologist, sued the Department of the Interior for race, national-origin, age discrimination, retaliation, and negligence; she later entered a settlement requiring her retirement in exchange for $200,000 and a neutral letter of recommendation.
The settlement allowed revocation only by written notice received at a specified DOI address within seven days; Wu sent notice by FedEx standard overnight but it arrived on the eighth day (a different DOI office received it on day six).
After briefly returning to work Wu fainted and suffered a traumatic brain injury; the DOI moved to enforce the settlement, Wu consented, accepted $200,000, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
About three years later Wu filed a Rule 60(b) motion (her third) seeking to set aside the stipulated dismissal and related orders based on newly discovered evidence (a 2019 doctor’s after‑visit note and a contemporaneous text message) and alleged docket tampering/redaction.
The district court treated the filing as a Rule 60(b) motion, rejected the new‑evidence and coercion claims, found no improper deletion of docketed materials, held statutory OWBPA timing requirements did not apply to settlement of a court action, and denied relief.
The Tenth Circuit limited review to the denial of the third Rule 60(b) motion and affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction/scope	Wu sought review of prior orders via appeal from denial of third Rule 60(b) motion	Only the denial order identified in the notice of appeal is reviewable; timely filing governs scope	Appeal limited to denial of the March 16/17, 2020 order; jurisdiction confined to that order
Standard for Rule 60(b) relief	New evidence (doctor's note, text) and redaction/coercion justify setting aside settlement and dismissal	Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary; new materials do not show coercion or justify relief	Denial of Rule 60(b) motion affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion
OWBPA timing requirements	The 21‑day consideration and 7‑day revocation rules apply and were not met, rendering waiver involuntary	OWBPA subsections (F) and (G) timing do not apply to waivers made in settlement of a court action	Held that subsections (F) and (G) timing provisions do not apply to settlement of a court action; agreement valid
Failure to provide neutral letter	Lack of the promised neutral letter voids or invalidates the settlement	Prior appellate ruling and district court findings foreclose relief; failure does not justify setting aside dismissal	Rejected under law‑of‑the‑case; prior decision forecloses reopening settlement

Williams v. Akers, 837 F.3d 1075 (10th Cir. 2016) (designation of the order appealed is jurisdictional)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (appeal of Rule 60(b) denial reviews only the denial, not the underlying decision)
Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2016) (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Walters v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 703 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2013) (OWBPA interpretation regarding settlement of court claims)
Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422 (1998) (distinguished — concerned waiver in termination agreement, not settlement of a court action)
Dobbs v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 600 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2010) (application of law‑of‑the‑case doctrine)