- 10 -
compromise settlement of any and all legal, evidentiary,
discovery, and document production issues regarding Claim No.
624".5 Accordingly, we conclude that the settlement agreement
represented a compromise and settlement of petitioner's rights
pursuant to her claim against State Farm alleging discrimination6
under title VII.7
Petitioners also argue that, in releasing all of her rights
against State Farm, petitioner's release included tort or tort
type rights. We, however, conclude that petitioners have failed
to establish that the State Farm payment was attributable to a
claim based upon tort or tort type rights under laws other than
title VII.8 Consequently, petitioners have failed to prove that
any part of the State Farm payment is excludable from gross
5 Claim No. 624 was the identification of petitioner's claim
against State Farm in the class action suit.
6 We do not find applicable petitioners' citation of Rojo v.
Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65, 82, 801 P.2d 376, 383 (1990), in which the
California Supreme Court held that a claim under the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act "does not displace any causes of
action and remedies that are otherwise available to plaintiffs."
As discussed, supra, petitioner's claim was under title VII.
7 As petitioner's claim arose during 1975 and the class action
suit was filed during 1979, the amendments to title VII made by
sec. 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166, 105
Stat. 1072-1074, do not apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511
U.S. 244 (1994).
8 We note that, insofar as the State Farm payment was
attributable to a claim under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), "a recovery under the ADEA is not
one that is 'based upon tort or tort type rights.'" Commissioner
v. Schleier, 515 U.S. , , 115 S. Ct. 2159, 2167 (1995).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011