IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY L. SCOTT ) 

 )

 Plaintiff, ) 

 )

vs. ) CASE NO.: 2:06-cv-654-MEF 

 )

NORMENTSECURITY GROUP ) JUDGE MARKUSZESKI E. FULLER 

 )

 Defendant. ) 

NOTICE TO THE COURT AND 

MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT

OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Defendant, Norment Security Group, Inc. and advises the Court that it 

settled the Plaintiff’s claim against it but that it is now advised by the Plaintiff’s attorney, 

Braxton Schell, Jr., that the Plaintiff has backed out of the settlement. 

I. The following details the events leading up to this state of affairs: 

 A. The Plaintiff’s deposition was set for June 19, 2007. The parties had found it 

difficult to find an agreeable date. This left the Defendant with a very short time to complete its 

dispositive motion after the Plaintiff’s deposition. 

B. The attorneys for the parties engaged in settlement discussions culminating on 

June 18, 2007, the day before the Plaintiff’s deposition. The Plaintiff had offered to settle for 

$15,000. The Defendant counter-offered $10,000, conditioned on a complete and confidential 

settlement and release. The Defendant is advised that the counsel for the plaintiff contacted 

Plaintiff and secured his consent to make a counteroffer of $12,500.00. Defendant’s counsel 

secured Defendant’s consent to this counterproposal. Defendant’s counsel conveyed that 

agreement to Plaintiff’s counsel along with the stipulation that confidentiality would be enforced 

by liquidated damages of half the settlement amount. The Defendant received an email 

communication from Plaintiff’s counsel just after noon on June 18, 2007 as follows: “Bruce, 

This will confirm our settlement for $12,500, with all the usual conditions.” The email requested

1

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 1 of 14
that Defendant’s counsel draft and forward a settlement and release to Plaintiff’s counsel. 

Defendant’s counsel replied to the email from Plaintiff’s counsel the same day at 1:30 pm,

confirming the settlement and the agreement for liquidated damages for any breach of

confidentiality. Based on the settlement, the plaintiff’s deposition, along with the others, was 

mutually cancelled. 

C. On Thursday, June 21, 2007, Defendant’s counsel received the following email 

from Plaintiff’s counsel: 

“Bruce – Just a quick heads up. Scott is waffling on the

settlement-I told him if he reneged I would withdraw and either the 

judge would enforce it, or he’d have to find new counsel and try to 

get [Judge] Fuller to waive deadlines, which is unlikely. I think it 

will work out, and I’m out of the country next week, back in the 

office on July 2. Go ahead and prepare release, but don’t send 

check yet and I’ll call you when I get back.” 

On that same day, Defendant’s counsel sent the settlement agreement to the Plaintiff’s counsel 

[Attachment 1]. 

D. On July 2, 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel sent the Defendant’s counsel a facsimile copy 

of a letter confirming that Mr. Scott would no longer go along with the agreed settlement and 

wanted “to back out.” Mr. Schell’s letter of July 2, 2007 to this effect is attached [Attachment 2]. 

II. The case has been settled. The agreement is fair to the Plaintiff and should 

be enforced. The Defendant agreed to settle on a cost-of-defense basis because the 

Plaintiff’s claims of racial discrimination and retaliation are very weak: 

 A. Plaintiff was a probationary employee who had problems with attendance and 

compliance with safety rules. 

 B. He was terminated after incurring, in less than three months, all but one of the 

annual attendance points allowed under Defendant’s attendance system. 

 C. He was terminated after an absence of two days during which he did not call his

supervisor as required. 

 D. He was terminated by the same person who hired him less than three months

before with knowledge of his race which gives the defendant the “same actor” presumption

against discriminatory motive. 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 2 of 14
E. He will not be able to provide any similarly-situated white employee who 

received more advantageous treatment from his supervisor. 

 F. He was in a department that contained an approximately-equal number of white 

and African American employees. 

 G. His retaliation claim is based on a contention that the Defendant enforced its

plant-wide safety rules more stringently against minorities, in essence a claim that the defendant 

cared less whether its white employees were injured. 

H. He has very little claim for actual damages because he secured a higher-paying 

position after his discharge. 

 

III. The Defendant has been highly prejudiced by the Plaintiff’s action in 

backing out of the agreed-upon settlement. Plaintiff’s deposition was cancelled in 

consideration of his willingness to settle and Plaintiff backed out of the settlement when it 

was too late for the Defendant to depose him and prepare a dispositive motion. 

IV. The Defendant stands ready to pay the settlement sums as the Court may 

direct. 

WHEREFORE, the Defendant asks that the settlement be enforced with the Plaintiff

required to live up to the terms of the settlement agreement. In the alternative, the Defendant 

asks that the Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed because his actions violated his obligation to provide 

discovery and that the Court grant the Defendant whatever other or additional relief the Court 

may find appropriate, including assessing costs for this Report and Motion against the Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted, 

s/Bruce J. Downey III 

BRUCE J. DOWNEY III 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS 

OF COUNSEL: 

CAPELL & HOWARD, P. C. 

150 South Perry Street 

Post Office Box 2069 

Montgomery, Alabama 36104 

(334) 241-8000 

(334) 323-8888 

3

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 3 of 14
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of July, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to 

the following: 

Braxton Schell, Jr., Esq. 

Braxton Schell, Jr., P.C. 

1330 - 21st Way S. 

Ste. 210 

Birmingham, AL 35205 

s/Bruce J. Downey III 

OF COUNSEL 

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 4 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 5 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 6 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 7 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 8 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 9 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 10 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 11 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 12 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 13 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 22 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 14 of 14