Yeschick v. Mineta
675 F.3d 622
6th Cir.2012Background
- Yeschick, a former FAA air traffic controller, applied for reemployment in 1993 after PATCO strike participation; his application was later marked inactive in 2000 due to lack of current contact information.
- FAA did not rehire Yeschick and later relied on his inactive status to grant summary judgment against him on ADEA claim; district court held he failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies and failed to prove but-for causation.
- Yeschick pursued a Rule 60(b) relief-from-judgment motion claiming excusable neglect due to his counsel’s email-notice failures after a change from alltel.net to windstream.net.
- The district court denied relief under Rule 60(b), citing counsel’s duty to monitor the docket and prejudice to the FAA; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal after reviewing the Rule 60(b) standards and the merits of the underlying summary judgment.
- On remand, the FAA’s second summary-judgment motion argued lack of new merits discovery and still-favorable non-discriminatory reasons; Yeschick did not respond.
- The court addressed both Rule 60(b) issues (excusable neglect and final judgment relief) and whether the district court properly granted summary judgment under ADEA standards, including the but-for causation standard from Gross and the law-of-the-case framework on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was proper for excusable neglect | Yeschick’s counsel’s email-change caused failure to respond. | Neglect was not excusable; counsel failed to monitor docket. | No excusable neglect; district court did not abuse its discretion. |
| Whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the ADEA claim | Age was the but-for cause; evidence supports discrimination. | FAA showed legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; no but-for causation shown. | Correctly granted; FAA's reasons credible and no but-for causation shown. |
| Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine was violated by the second summary judgment | Second motion re-raises issues already decided. | Law-of-the-case did not bar considering merits on remand. | Not violated; district court properly considered remand issues. |
| Whether Yeschick exhausted administrative remedies timely | EEOC timeliness should be tolled due to ongoing discovery/filings. | Timeliness missed; failure to act precluded relief. | Timeliness not established; district court proper on exhaustion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (five-factor excusable neglect test for Rule 60(b)(1))
- Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381 (6th Cir.2001) (Pioneer factors not controlling where relief from judgment on merits)
- Kuhn v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., 498 F.3d 365 (6th Cir.2007) (affirmative duty to monitor docket; emails/addresses)
- Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483 (6th Cir.2000) (Rule 60(b) review; motion challenging merits rather than default)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (but-for causation standard for ADEA)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine issue of material fact)
- Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc., 663 F.3d 806 (6th Cir.2011) (summary judgment de novo; standard of review)
- Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392 (6th Cir.1993) (Rule 60(b) standards applicability)