Seventh Circuit Reinforces the Importance of Memorializing Agreements in Mediation

22 March 2016 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

Put it in writing.

How many times have those four words been uttered in the course of commerce?

Many more than we care to count, to be sure. For the fact remains that the act of putting pen to paper, ribbon to page, or transmitting bits in a particular fashion (the complicated subsurface of modern technology foils us here), all to memorialize the meeting of the minds, is a significant—and consequential—step.

That is the essence of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Beverly v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 15-1098 (7th Cir. Mar. 16, 2016), a case in which the court upheld the district court’s decision to enforce a handwritten agreement reached in mediation. Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote for the court. The case, decided under Illinois law, is a notable exhibition of the court’s pro-enforcement attitude on these issues.

Abbott Labs fired Martina Beverly in 2010, and she sued, alleging that her former employer had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating and retaliating against her for her German nationality and her disabilities.

The parties mediated their dispute without a definite resolution, and near the end of their day-long session both parties and counsel signed the following handwritten agreement:

I Jon Klinghoffer will commit that my client will communicate to its internal business client the fact that Abbott/AbbVie has offered $200,000 + Abbott/Abbvie pays cost of mediation to resolve this matter and that Martina Beverly has demanded $210,000 + Abbott/AbbVie pays cost of mediation to resolve this matter. Both parties commit that their offer and demand will remain open until Tuesday, July 22, 2014, 3:00 PM central.

Abbott’s lawyer accepted Beverly’s offer the next day in an email: “My client has accepted Martina Beverly’s demand to resolve her claims in the above referenced matter for $210,000 plus the costs of yesterday’s mediation. I have attached a draft settlement agreement for your review.”

To which Beverly’s counsel responded, “Oh happy days! Best $10,000 Abbott has ever spent. You are a gem.”

Beverly’s counsel forwarded Abbott’s acceptance, but Beverly did not share her lawyer’s enthusiasm and decided not to sign. Abbott moved successfully to enforce the agreement.

On appeal, Beverly argued that the handwritten agreement was not enforceable because it omitted material terms found only in the unsigned draft proposal—viz., indemnification, future cooperation, her future employment at Abbott, the precise allocation of the settlement funds, and express language for release and waiver.

The Seventh Circuit wasn’t buying it. Instead, it noted that “these various provisions, taken together, constitute nearly the entire six-page typewritten proposal; certainly they are not all equally essential.”

The court dismissed Beverly’s concerns regarding the indemnification, cooperation, and future-employment provisions, noting that she dealt with them on appeal in a “cursory fashion” and “with no attempt to explain how any of these issues are so vital.”

As to the release-and-waiver provisions, the court said that the promise to “resolve this matter” found in the handwritten agreement was sufficient.

The district court decision to enforce the settlement was affirmed. Abbott is surely grateful that it had this one in writing.

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