- 11 - of the release in the settlement and the description of the cause of action in the pretrial order. The language in the release does not indicate that the clause at issue modifies only the last type of relief in the list given. If that had been the intention, the authors could have written it as petitioners rewrote it in their briefs, with numbers clearly delineating the types of relief and applying the modifying clause only to the last type of relief. The pretrial order description of the settlement agreement also belies petitioners’ interpretation. The release is described as a release of “any and all claims Plaintiffs have made or could have made arising out of any and all known or unknown economic losses or damages compensable under the FLSA”. This language clearly excludes from the release any claims for noneconomic injuries or for any claims for losses or damages arising out of non-FLSA causes of action. Petitioners testified that they understood the release to cover all claims against the State of Kansas, including any claims for the medical conditions they contend resulted from their employment with the State. Although the belief of the payee is relevant to the inquiry, the character of the settlement payment hinges ultimately on the dominant reason of the payor in making that payment. See Agar v. Commissioner, 290 F.2d 283, 284 (2d Cir. 1961), affg. T.C. Memo. 1960-21;Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011