11th Circuit Confirms A Settlement is a Settlement

On January 23, 2011, I wrote Advisory to the Pro Se Litigant #12: Yes, You Have A Right to Resolve Your Case, in which I wrote that pointed out that one cannot sign an agreement now and reopen a case when new information arises.

Rarely is there a case that highlights the proposition more than the recently decided 11th circuit case of Sherrod v. School Board of Palm Beach County.  In this case, Curtis Sherrod settled First Amendment claims against the School Board for $272,425.  He has now brought a cause of action claiming that the employer discriminated against him, in violation of 42 USC Sec. 1981, a critical anti-discrimination statute, by entering into a more favorable settlement, namely $490,000, with a white male, Dr. Elfers, who also alleged violations of his First Amendment Rights.

The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the language of the settlement entered into by the parties and determined that it bars the claims Mr. Sherrod seeks to pursue. According to the Eleventh Circuit, the alleged discriminatory actions of the school board in offering a lower amount for settlement than was offered to a similarly situated individual of a different race, occurred prior to the parties' entering into a settlement agreement, and are therefore implicitly settled.  By entering into the agreement, and accepting the benefit of the bargain, Mr. Sherrod is not allowed to reopen litigation because he now doesn't like the terms.

This case offers two important lessons for those settling cases. First, one cannot re-open a case merely because new information comes available later that suggests that settlement is not all that can be achieved.Two, a written settlement agreement of claims often covers any claims that might arise during the negotiations themselves. A party anticipating a need to preserve rights to engage in post-settlement litigation along these lines will need to craft a settlement agreement reflecting these rights--although it is highly unlikely any represented entity would contemplate entering into a settlement agreement giving the plaintiff rights to reopen a case if he is later unhappy with the settlement.

PS: As an aside, note that this case does not deal with the case where a settlement is achieved through fraud or unlawful coercion.  In this case, the 11th circuit recorded no allegation that the School Board engaged in either of these wrongs in order to get Mr. Sherrod to settle his case. If the School Board had, I am certain the result of the case would have been entirely different.