-12-
harassment claim, the emotional stress claim, or the assault and
battery claim. Rather, the parties agreed that the amount was
paid “In consideration for the Release and Covenant Not to Sue
given by Employee”. The parties also agreed that the “Settlement
is made only to buy peace and to compromise disputed claims, and
to avoid the expense and inconvenience of trial.”
The nature of the underlying claims cannot be determined by
a general release that is broad and inclusive. Taggi v. United
States, 835 F. Supp. 744, 746 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), affd. 35 F.3d 93,
96 (2d Cir. 1994). Such a release was included in the agreement
in the case before the Court. The agreement released Daimler-
Chrysler and all related entities from “any and all known or
unknown grievances, disputes, actions, causes of action; * * *
claims at law or in equity, or sounding in contract * * * or
tort, arising under common law, any federal, state or local
statute or ordinance”. This release included age discrimination,
disability discrimination, any claims arising from title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as claims regarding wages
and overtime and health insurance coverage.
Where the agreement does not address “what portion, if any,
of a settlement payment should be allocated towards damages
excludable under * * * [section 104(a)(2)], the courts will not
make that allocation for the parties.” Taggi v. United States,
supra at 746. If the “settlement agreement lacks express
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011