- 9 -
to all members of the class who had been discriminated against and
ordered individual hearings.2 Kraszewski v. State Farm Gen. Ins.
Co., 38 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 197 (N.D. Cal. 1985). The
court did not limit relief to State Farm employees.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Burke,
supra, controls. The issue in Burke was whether amounts received
in settlement of a title VII claim were excludable pursuant to
section 104(a)(2). The Court analyzed title VII and held that it
did not provide for remedies to recompense claimants for tort type
personal injuries. Rather, the Court noted that the statute offered
only injunctions, back and front pay, and other equitable relief.
Id. at 238-239. Accordingly, the Court held that title VII did not
redress a tort type personal injury and consequently that settlement
proceeds based on such a claim are not excludable pursuant to
section 104(a)(2).
Here, petitioner and State Farm entered into a settlement
agreement pursuant to which State Farm paid $202,877 to petitioner
for her release of a claim "arising out of or relating to any
alleged discriminatory, improper, or unlawful act or omission of
State Farm in connection with * * * recruitment, selection, hiring,
job assignment, job transfer, training, promotion, or termination".
In addition, the settlement agreement specifically stated that it
2 Although petitioner did not have a hearing to determine
whether she was entitled to damages, petitioner and State Farm
nevertheless entered into a settlement.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011