Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01241/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01241-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tamara L. Warren, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Lizanatay, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1241-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant's motion to enforce a settlement agreement and

motion to dismiss (doc. 9), plaintiff's response (doc. 13), and defendant's reply (doc. 14).

Plaintiff, a waitress at defendant's restaurant, filed this Title VII action alleging that she was

sexually harassed by her supervisor and then terminated when she reported the harassment.

Through her counsel, plaintiff offered in writing to settle the matter "for one year's salary"

plus $2,000 in attorney's fees. Defendant's attorney responded in writing "accept[ing] the

settlement offer." Defendant's attorney then prepared a Settlement Agreement and Release,

providing for a total payment to plaintiff of $7,003.47, including $5,003.47 as the annualized

amount paid by defendant to plaintiff at a rate of $2.17 an hour, plus $2,000 in attorney's

fees. Plaintiff's counsel immediately objected to the salary calculation, asserting that the

offer to settle for one year's salary was intended to include tips at an average rate of $9.00

an hour, for a total settlement amount of $24,380. 

Case 2:06-cv-01241-FJM Document 15 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Defendant moves to enforce a settlement agreement, although no notice of settlement

has been filed with the court. The parties entered into settlement negotiations, indicated a

mutual desire to settle, and began negotiating specific terms of the agreement. The

negotiations broke down once a written settlement agreement was proposed. Although

plaintiff suggested payment of "one year's salary," the parties have vastly different

interpretations of that term. "Salary" is generally defined as "[a]n agreed compensation for

services–esp[ecially] professional or semiprofessional services–usu[ally] paid at regular

intervals on a yearly basis, as distinguished from an hourly basis." Black's Law Dictionary

1364 (8th ed. 2004). Therefore, the term "salary" fits neither parties' contention. Plaintiff's

position is flawed because tips are not an agreed compensation paid at regular intervals and

defendant's position is flawed because it paid plaintiff on an hourly basis. While we have the

inherent power to enforce an agreement to settle a case pending before us, we "may enforce

only complete settlement agreements." Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987)

(emphasis in original). Here, there was no meeting of the minds with respect to a material

term of the agreement, specifically the settlement amount. Therefore, there is no settlement

to enforce.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant's motion to enforce a

settlement agreement and motion to dismiss (doc. 9). Defendant shall file its answer within

fifteen days of the docketing of this order.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01241-FJM Document 15 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2