- 9 -
the settlement agreement expressly stated that it includes "the
compromise settlement of any and all legal, evidentiary,
discovery, and production issues regarding Claim No. 162."4
Accordingly, we conclude that the settlement agreement
represented a compromise and settlement of petitioner's rights
pursuant to her claim against State Farm alleging discrimination
under title VII.5
Petitioners finally argue that, because section A of exhibit
9 to the consent decree recognizes damages other than title VII
damages, petitioner's claim was based upon 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. Consequently, petitioners have failed to prove that any
part of the State Farm payment is excludable from gross income.
Accordingly, based upon the record in the instant case, we
conclude that, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the State
Farm payment was intended to settle petitioner's claim against
State Farm under title VII.
4 Claim No. 162 was the identification of petitioner's claim
against State Farm in the class action suit.
5 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011