*

After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument

is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2).

 

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 20, 2008*

Decided February 22, 2008

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 07-2318

EARL STANFORD WORTHINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ADVOCATE HEALTH CARE

CORPORATION d.b.a. BETHANY

HOSPITAL,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

Division

No. 02 C 8994

Harry D. Leinenweber,

Judge. 

O R D E R

Earl Worthington sued his former employer, Advocate Health Care, under Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, claiming race discrimination and

retaliation. More than two years after the district court dismissed the suit, Worthington moved to

vacate the judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). He appeals from the denial of that motion. We

affirm. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 07-2318 Page 2

The district court dismissed the underlying suit in September 2004 after the parties

reached a tentative settlement. The court authorized Worthington to seek reinstatement by the

end of October if the agreement fell through, but before the deadline passed Worthington had

executed the written agreement and received the $25,000 promised him. Then in November,

after his lawyer had withdrawn, Worthington informed Advocate that he was “revoking” the

settlement agreement primarily because, he said, the district court had ruled before dismissing

the suit that he was owed more. (The court had not.) Worthington, however, did not return the

settlement proceeds and, to date, has not offered to relinquish the funds. Nor did he file anything

with the district court for the next two and one-half years. Instead, he repeatedly contacted

Advocate’s lawyers and demanded more money. (Worthington insists that an Advocate

executive promised him $2.5 million.) After a year of receiving these demands, Advocate filed

suit in Illinois state court seeking to enforce the settlement agreement and enjoin Worthington’s

harrassment. Worthington missed several hearings, but when a body attachment finally

compelled his appearance, he promised to stop contacting Advocate. Based upon that

representation, the state court dismissed Advocate’s suit in March 2007. 

 

A month later, in April 2007, Worthington moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b) to vacate the 2004 judgment. He asserted, among other things, that the state court had

declared the settlement agreement invalid and he himself had revoked it, and thus the judgment

is void. See FED R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4). Worthington also argued that Advocate’s unwillingness to

repudiate the settlement constituted an extraordinary circumstance meriting relief from the

judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6). The district court denied Worthington’s motion. He

filed a motion to reconsider within ten days of the entry of that decision, and the district court

denied that as well. 

This appeal is frivolous. Worthington presses his contention that the September 2004

judgment should have been vacated under Rule 60(b)(4) because, he says, he revoked the

settlement agreement and the Illinois court invalidated it. Neither is true. A person may not get

out of a binding agreement just because he has changed his mind. And the state court dismissed

Advocate’s suit solely because Worthington promised to stop contacting Advocate. In any

event, neither contention, even if true, would tend to demonstrate that the judgment is void. 

Worthington also continues to maintain that he presented truly extraordinary circumstances

meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(6), see Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536 (2005); Lowe v.

McGraw-Hill Vos., Inc., 361 F.3d 335, 342 (7th Cir. 2004), because Advocate’s representatives

refused to correspond with him about the settlement agreement after the company cut the checks. 

But there is nothing extraordinary about that.

AFFIRMED.