Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SAMMAN v. WHARTON ECONOMETRIC FORECASTING ASSOCS.

January 13, 1984

DR. NABIL SAMMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
WHARTON ECONOMETRIC FORECASTING ASSOCIATES, INC., and MR. VAHAN ZANOYAN, Defendants


Charles R. Richey, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHEY

The court now has before it the parties' briefs and replies on the issue of whether plaintiff's Title VII claims are barred by a release agreement he signed on March 22, 1983. In the first phase of this case, a jury trial was held on December 8-9, 1983, which ended with a verdict that the release was not invalid due to duress, fraudulent misrepresentation, or material breach by defendants. The court's task in this second phase is to examine the scope of the release -- specifically, whether the general language of the release clause extends to plaintiff's Title VII claims.

 The court finds that plaintiff's Title VII claims are barred by the unambiguous language of the release: "Dr. Samman hereby releases . . . [defendants] from any and all claims, obligations and liabilities relating to Dr. Samman's employment with . . . [defendant]." There can be no question that this language encompasses Dr. Samman's Title VII claims that he was paid a lower salary, denied travel and outside employment opportunities, harassed, placed on an involuntary leave of absence, and forced to resign. The release agreement was supported by consideration of $8,975.00. This is a typical example of the voluntary settlement of disputes, a process favored by the law in Title VII cases as in all others. See, e.g., Pilon v. University of Minnesota, 710 F.2d 466 (8th Cir. 1983); Runyan v. NCR Corp., 573 F. Supp. 1454, 33 F.E.P. Cases 322 (S.D. Ohio 1983); Reed v. SmithKline Beckman Corp., 569 F. Supp. 672 (E.D. Pa. 1983).

 Finally, the court notes that it stretches credulity to suppose that defendants would have entered the agreement and paid plaintiff a substantial sum if they did not contemplate total protection from future litigation.

 It is therefore by the court this 13th day of January, 1984,

 ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against plaintiff on plaintiff's Title VII claims and the Clerk is directed to enter final judgment on all claims in favor of defendants and with costs to defendants.

19840113

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.