- 10 -
is, in lieu of what was the settlement amount paid?” Bagley v.
Commissioner, 105 T.C. 396, 406 (1995), affd. 121 F.3d 393 (8th
Cir. 1997).
The settlement agreement allocated payments for backpay and
attendant benefits and for an amount equal to one and one-half
times Mr. Broedel’s annual salary. The form and taxability of
the amount allocated to the backpay and attendant benefits are
not at issue. Because the remaining portion of the settlement
agreement, $58,372.50, is not allocated among petitioners’
various claims, we will examine the nature of each claim in turn.
Initially, we address petitioners’ claim that Mr. Broedel
suffered injury to his reputation because of harassment by SUNY.
The consent award and the complaint do not refer to any claim by
Mr. Broedel alleging harm to his reputation as the result of
harassment by SUNY, nor is there an allocation to such a claim in
the consent award. Petitioners have failed to present any
evidence establishing that SUNY paid any portion of the
settlement amount to compensate Mr. Broedel for injury to his
reputation.
Mr. Broedel’s complaint for relief was based on both State
and Federal law. The complaint raised allegations under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Pub. L. 90-202,
sec. 2, 81 Stat. 602. Recovery under the ADEA is not based upon
tort or tort type rights. See Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011