- 10 -
complaint filed in the California court; namely, claims of
physical injury. However, the settlement agreement specifically
provides that the $50,000 was to be “payment for alleged
emotional distress”. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that
petitioner had a valid claim for damages from the injury to her
hand in excess of any amounts that the May Company had previously
paid her, it is evident from the record that petitioner had
stopped pursuing any such claim long before she entered into the
settlement agreement. Even if her decision to do so was based
upon the alleged retaliatory action by her employer, it is
nevertheless clear that she abandoned the claim. When petitioner
subsequently entered into the agreement with the May Company, the
intent of both parties was to settle petitioner’s sexual
harassment suit which she had filed with the California court.
The inclusion in the settlement agreement of the provision
relating to the injury to petitioner’s hand was, in the context
of the overall agreement, merely an extension of the agreement’s
general provisions releasing the May Company from any and all
claims which petitioner had against the May Company. The use of
these provisions reflects an intent to prevent future lawsuits
which petitioner might have been able to bring against the May
Company, but it does not reflect an intent to compensate
petitioner for any physical injury.
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