Don't Be a Punchline in a B-Horror Movie: When Entering into Settlement Agreements, Make Sure the Claims are Really Dead and Buried

14 December 2015 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

(Spoiler alert) The 1958 cult classic “The Blob”, starring a 28-year-old Steve McQueen, ends with the villainous mass incapacitated, frozen, and dropped into the Arctic Ocean. It seems that humanity is saved. However, just before the credits roll, the protagonist notes that the blob is not dead, but merely stopped “as long as the Arctic stays cold.” With those prophetic words, the world (along with good taste) was again jeopardized 14 years later in the cinematographic masterpiece “Beware! The Blob!

What lessons could “The Blob” possibly have for employers? Well, above all else, when settling an employee’s work-relating claims, employers want to avoid sequels. After all, why invest in a resolution just to have an employee’s claim rise from the dead and strike the company again?

A recent federal case decided in Pennsylvania highlights the need for care in settling claims with employees. In that case, a long-time elementary school teacher received a performance improvement plan (PIP) that warned of potential termination after she returned from a medical leave of absence. The teacher claimed that age and disability status motivated the discipline, and she sought her union’s help. The union and school district worked out a deal in which the PIP was rescinded, the union withdrew its grievance, and the teacher agreed to voluntarily retire the next year. With the crisis seemingly averted, the teacher indeed retired in the summer of 2014.

Unfortunately for the school district, after retiring, the teacher filed suit in federal court, alleging she was forced to retire as a result of unlawful disability and age discrimination. The school district asked the court to dismiss the case, explaining that the parties had already been down that route and the employee had in fact signed a settlement agreement pertaining to these very claims — a settlement agreement which provided that her retirement was “knowing and voluntary” and that was a “complete settlement agreement” of the teacher’s claims.

The court rejected this argument however, concluding that the settlement agreement was not specific enough to serve as a release of future age or disability discrimination claims. Instead, the court noted that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) has very stringent requirements for releasing claims, including for example, a statement directly referring to the fact that the employee is giving up claims under the ADEA. Likewise, the court determined that even though the settlement agreement was deemed “complete,” it did not contain any language specifically releasing discrimination claims under state or federal law. Accordingly, rather than permitting the settlement agreement to foreclose the lawsuit, the court allowed the case to go forward for a determination of whether or not the school discriminated against the teacher.

This recent case should serve as a wake-up call for employers who want to avoid becoming enmeshed in sequels to employment claims that they thought were long buried. Certain types of employment claims, including age claims and wage and hour claims, have very specific requirements for what constitutes a proper release; and, as the Pennsylvania court highlighted, merely stating that a matter is “completely” settled does not adequately close off potential claims. Finally, merely because you have used certain forms of release in the past with no trouble does not mean you will have the same success in the future, if the release is not drafted properly.

As always, if in doubt, before handing over money or something of value to resolve an employee’s claim, make sure you have had adequate legal review to avoid experiencing your own “Night of the Living Dead.”

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ