## Facts

- Gary D. Yeschick worked as a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controller (1974–1981) and was terminated in 1981 after refusing to return to work during the PATCO strike.
- After the federal rehire ban was lifted, Yeschick applied to be rehired from a PATCO eligibility register maintained by the FAA.
- Yeschick alleged the FAA failed to rehire him because of age and, in October 2002, initiated an administrative age-discrimination complaint.
- Federal-sector regulations required contact with an agency EEO counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory act; the administrative complaint was dismissed as untimely.
- Yeschick sued the Secretary of Transportation in federal district court under the ADEA, alleging age-based failure to rehire.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the government, reasoning the FAA had marked Yeschick’s application “inactive” in 2000 and Yeschick did not contact an EEO counselor until 2002.
- After judgment, Yeschick sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), asserting his lawyer did not receive electronic notices because counsel failed to update an email address in the court’s electronic filing system and did not adequately monitor the docket.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b)(1) relief where counsel missed filings due to failure to update ECF email information and failure to monitor the electronic docket.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on Yeschick’s federal-sector ADEA claim, including whether his claim was barred for failure to satisfy the 45-day EEO counseling requirement and whether the record supported an age-discrimination claim.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b)(1) relief; counsel’s failure to update contact information and monitor the docket was not excusable neglect.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the Secretary on the ADEA claim, rejecting Yeschick’s claim on the merits and leaving undisturbed the district court’s conclusion that the EEO contact was untimely.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b)(1) “excusable neglect” generally does not include an attorney’s failure to maintain current CM/ECF contact information or to monitor the court’s electronic docket; such neglect is attributable to the client.
- Parties and counsel have an affirmative duty to monitor the docket; reliance on electronic notices alone is insufficient when counsel’s own omissions cause lack of notice.
- Federal-sector ADEA claimants must timely initiate EEO counseling—typically within 45 days of the challenged personnel action—before pursuing litigation.
- Even if procedural questions are disputed, an ADEA plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence that age was the but-for cause of the adverse action to survive summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed both the denial of Rule 60(b)(1) relief and summary judgment for the government, holding that counsel’s failure to update ECF information and monitor the docket was not excusable neglect and that Yeschick did not establish a triable federal-sector ADEA failure-to-rehire claim.


Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2012)