Robert E. and Louise L. Mumy - Page 5

                                         -4-                                          
          Ann. sec. 4112.99 (LexisNexis 2001) provides for “damages,                  
          injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief” for violation           
          of the Ohio civil rights statute.  Petitioner requested $500,000            
          in compensatory damages and $500,000 for punitive damages.                  
               In October 2002, petitioner settled her claims against                 
          DaimlerChrysler for $12,000.  Petitioner directly accepted                  
          $11,500 from DaimlerChrysler, and approved $500 to be paid to her           
          attorney.2  These amounts were paid in full settlement of any               
          claims by petitioner.                                                       
               The settlement agreement (agreement) referenced the                    
          harassment, personal injury, and emotional distress allegations             
          in a preliminary “whereas” clause.  The agreement specifically              
          stated in clause 6 that “Settlement is made only to buy peace and           
          to compromise disputed claims, and to avoid the expense and                 
          inconvenience of trial.”  The parties agreed that the amounts               
          were paid “In consideration for the Release and Covenant Not to             
          Sue given by Employee”.                                                     
               No allocation was made with regard to the amount of damages            
          paid, if any, in consideration of the pinch and for the                     
          harassment.  DaimlerChrysler intended the agreement to encompass            
          “settlement of all claims”.                                                 


               2Despite Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S.    , 125 S. Ct. 826           
          (2005), respondent has not determined that the $500 paid to                 
          petitioner’s attorney in October 2002 be included in petitioners’           
          taxable income.  Therefore, the Court will not consider it.                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011