# James L. Hatcher v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · August 14, 1980 · 631 F.2d 985

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467148

## Case

- **Full name:** James L. HATCHER, Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF the CURRENCY Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** August 14, 1980
- **Citations:** 631 F.2d 985; 203 U.S. App. D.C. 403; 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 14880
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by MacKINNON
- **Judges:** Robinson, MacKinnon, Mikva
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467148

## Opinion text

MacKINNON, Circuit Judge:
(concurring).
I join in the foregoing disposition of the case but would also hold that appellant is estopped to attack the settlement that resulted in his retirement since he has accepted the very valuable benefits of the settlement. The receipt of the benefits of the settlement which were acquired by inducing the Government to change its position on discharging Hatcher creates an equitable estoppel, an estoppel in pais, which denies him the right to plead or prove that his retirement was improper. 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estoppel and Waiver, §§ 26, 27, 33. Estop-pel may rest upon conduct and does not need an express written agreement. The Government gave up its right to discharge appellant for cause and allowed him to continue as an employee until he qualified for enhanced retirement benefits. This was in return for appellant’s dismissal of his original cause of action. In my view his acquisition of these enhanced retirement benefits and his refusal to surrender them estops him from attacking the settlement. He cannot keep the benefits he bargained for and at the same time attack the agreement that gave them to him. It would be grossly inequitable now to permit Hatcher to attack the contract that he is using to obtain regular retirement benefits. Id.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467148. Public record. Not legal advice.