Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03059/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

. ... , .~ .~:· ,.•v•~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 1 61992 

ROBERT L. H.OECKEJ: .. 

OPAL R. WORDS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE; WAYNE WICKLIFFE, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 92-3059 

(D.C. No. 89-2503-V) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before LOGAN, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff Opal R. Words appeals from an order dismissing her 

action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 u.s.c. 

§ 2000e, and the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination, Kan. Stat. 

Ann. §§ 44-1001 to -1044, and from an order denying a motion to 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3059 Document: 010110322332 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 1
reconsider the dismissal order. The district court dismissed the 

action after enforcing a settlement agreement. Words challenges 

the district court's finding that her attorney did not coerce her 

into authorizing him to settle the action. Because we conclude 

that finding is not clearly erroneous, we affirm the orders. 

Words applied for employment with defendant UPS as a package 

car driver. She claimed that she was subjected to unwelcome 

sexual advances by UPS's District Personnel Officer, Wayne 

Wickliffe, during the interview and orientation, and was denied 

the position of package car driver because she resisted 

Wickliffe's advances. 1 She further alleged that UPS retaliated 

against her for filing a sexual harassment complaint with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Trial was scheduled to begin on February 4, 1991. On 

January 27, 1991, Words signed a document authorizing her 

attorney, David Schmitt, to settle the lawsuit for $10,000. When 

presented with the written settlement document a few days later, 

however, she refused to sign it. Defendants moved to enforce the 

settlement agreement. 

The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who found that 

on January 16, 1991, defense counsel, Jeffrey Bruce, made a 

written $10,000 settlement offer to Schmitt. Words discharged 

Schmitt as her attorney on January 23, 1991. Schmitt filed a 

motion to withdraw, but Words rehired him on or before January 27, 

1991. 

1 She was hired by UPS as a part-time loader/unloader. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3059 Document: 010110322332 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 2
Schmitt presented the $10,000 offer to Words on January 27. 

He informed her that he had legal and ethical reasons for not 

wanting to take her case to trial, that he did not believe she 

would prevail at trial, and that he would attempt to withdraw as 

counsel on the motion still pending if she did not sign a form 

authorizing him to accept the settlement. Words signed the 

authorization form and told Schmitt she had no difficulty doing 

so. 

On January 27, Schmitt informed Bruce that Words had signed a 

written authorization for him to settle the lawsuit for $10,000. 

Bruce orally accepted Words' "settlement demand." The two lawyers 

exchanged faxes accepting and confirming acceptance of the 

settlement offer. Bruce then informed the court clerk of the 

settlement, and mailed the settlement documents and a $10,000 

check to Schmitt. 

After signing the authorization form, Words spoke with other 

attorneys who advised her that she was entitled to more than 

$10,000 in damages. When the settlement documents arrived, Words 

refused to sign them. 

The magistrate judge found that Words failed to show she did 

not knowingly and freely authorize Schmitt to enter the oral 

settlement agreement, and that Schmitt's threat to withdraw did 

not constitute duress. He recommended that the motion to , enforce 

the settlement agreement be granted. Following a de novo review, 

the district court adopted the recommendation in all material 

respects. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3059 Document: 010110322332 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 3
"[A)n employee may waive his cause of action under Title VII 

as part of a voluntary settlement. . " Alexander v. 

Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 52 (1974) (footnote omitted). 

Such waiver is effective only if the employee's consent to the 

settlement was voluntary and knowing. Id. n.15. A settlement of 

a Title VII action need not be reduced to writing. Fulqence v. 

J. Ray McDermott & Co., 662 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir. 1981). 

"Once it is shown that an attorney has entered into an 

agreement to settle a case, a party who denies that the attorney 

was authorized to enter into the settlement has the burden to 

prove that authorization was not given." Turner v. Burlington N. 

R.R., 771 F.2d 341, 345-46 (8th Cir. 1985). Words contends that 

she was coerced into signing the authorization form because 

Schmitt threatened to withdraw from the case days before trial was 

to commence. Whether Words authorized Schmitt to enter the 

settlement is a question of fact, Richmond v. Carter, 616 F.2d 

381, 383 (8th Cir. 1980); Butler v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner 

& Smith, Inc., 528 F.2d 1390, 1391 (9th Cir. 1975), and the 

district court's finding will not be set aside unless it is 

clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). 

Words terminated Schmitt on January 23, four days before the 

date on which she was allegedly coerced into signing the 

authorization form by Schmitt's threat to withdraw. Further, 

Schmitt testified that when he asked her if she was signing the 

authorization of her own free will, she said yes. This evidence 

supports the finding that she was not coerced. 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-3059 Document: 010110322332 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 4
Other courts have concluded that an attorney's threat to 

withdraw does not constitute coercion or duress that would void a 

settlement agreement. Dhaliwal v. Woods Division, Hesston Corp., 

52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1303, 1306 (N.D. Ill. 1990), aff'd, 

930 F.2d 547 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 194 (1991) 

(attorney's 

offer did 

threat to withdraw unless client accepted settlement 

not constitute "duress sufficient to negate the 

formation of an oral [settlement] agreement."); Macktal v. 

Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1157-58 (5th Cir. 1991) 

(upholding Secretary of Labor's enforcment of a settlement despite 

plaintiff's claim that his attorney threatened to withdraw if he 

did not accept); Gilbert v. United States, 479 F.2d 1267, 1268 (2d 

Cir. 1973) (settlement not claimed to have been unfair cannot be 

overturned because of an attorney's coercion or overbearing). In 

such a circumstance, the plaintiff's remedy is a claim against her 

attorney. 

Hayes v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 513 F.2d 892 (10th 

Cir. 1975), upon which Words relies, is inapposite. In Hayes, an 

attorney represented the appellants as well as sixteen other 

parties. The clients and attorney had entered an agreement that 

majority rule would govern acceptance of a settlement. 

Appellants, who were in the minority, contended they never 

authorized the attorney to settle. We concluded that the 

appellants had not authorized the settlement because the "majority 

rule" arrangement violated the basic tenets of the attorney-client 

relationship. Id. at 894-95. Unlike the appellants in Hayes, 

Words authorized Schmitt to enter the settlement agreement. 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-3059 Document: 010110322332 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 5
We conclude the district court's finding that Words 

authorized Schmitt to settle her case is not clearly erroneous. 

That court properly enforced the settlement agreement. The motion 

to reconsider was properly denied for the same reason. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-3059 Document: 010110322332 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 6