IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARBARA DOUGHERTY

v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

05-2336

JOYNER, J. August 29, 2006

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Via the motion now pending before this court, Defendant,

TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA (“Defendant” or “TEVA”), moves to

dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of

Procedure 12(c) or 56(c). For the reasons set forth below, the

motion shall be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff, Barbara Dougherty (“Plaintiff”), seeks recovery

for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and the Family and Medical Leave

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”). Plaintiff filed this

case as a pro se plaintiff, and was granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. TEVA answered Plaintiff’s Complaint, and then

filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Summary

Judgment on the basis that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by a

release agreement and that she failed to state a claim for which

relief could be granted. Plaintiff responded to this motion, and

also requested that this Court appoint counsel to act on her

behalf. The Court appointed counsel to represent Plaintiff,

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 21
While Defendant’s Supplement purports to “augment” the 1

earlier motion, facial deficiencies in pleading complained of in

the original motion were resolved by the Amended Complaint,

making those portions of the motion moot.

ordered Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint, and granted

leave to conduct discovery limited to the question of the

validity of any release agreement signed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff

was deposed, and filed an Amended Complaint. TEVA filed a

Supplement to Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Summary Judgment that

renewed its original motion to the extent it argued that

Plaintiff’s claims were barred by a release agreement.1

II. Factual Background

Plaintiff was hired by TEVA on May 4, 1998 as a

receptionist. (Pl.’s Dep. at 18.) Plaintiff later applied for

and was awarded the position of senior secretary in the medical

affairs department. (Id. at 20-21.) In that position, Plaintiff

reported to department manager Andy Shapiro, and was also

supervised by Valarie Cullen (“Cullen”). (Id. at 21, 23.)

In 2003, there was friction between Cullen and Plaintiff. 

(Pl.’s Dep. at 27-29.) The two had disagreements regarding

Plaintiff’s work performance. (Id.) Cullen also involved

herself in the efforts of Plaintiff’s family members to convince

Plaintiff to resume medication she had been prescribed to treat

her post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). (Id. at 44.) 

Plaintiff contacted the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 21
(“EEOC”) in May 2003 because she felt that she was the victim of

discrimination. (Id. at 34-35.) Plaintiff also looked for other

employment. (Id. at 29-31.)

Plaintiff’s issues with Cullen culminated in a meeting with

Senior Director of Human Resources Anthony Cerbone (“Cerbone”). 

(Pl.’s Dep. at 29-31.) Apparently unable to resolve the

situation, Cerbone suggested that it might be best if Plaintiff

left TEVA. (Id. at 29-30.) Cerbone mentioned the possibility of

providing a severance package for Plaintiff. (Id. at 32.)

On June 9, 2003, Plaintiff received a Separation Agreement

and General Release via inter-department mail. (Pl.’s Dep. at

57.) The Separation Agreement and General Release provided that,

in exchange for agreeing to its terms, Plaintiff would receive

one month’s salary and continued health insurance through COBRA. 

(Id.) Plaintiff left work on June 9, 2003, and decided not to

return to TEVA. (Id. at 39, 57.)

On June 10, 2003, Plaintiff called Cerbone regarding the

papers she had received the previous day. (Pl.’s Dep. at 57-58.) 

Plaintiff told Cerbone that she did not want to leave the

company, but that she wanted to take a leave of absence. (Id.) 

Cerbone offered to increase the compensation under the severance

package to two months of salary and two months of continued

coverage through COBRA. (Id.) Plaintiff said “okay,” and on

June 13, 2003 Cerbone mailed a second Separation Agreement and

General Release (the “Agreement”) including this change. (Id. at

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 21
In her Affidavit, Plaintiff claims that a different, 2

unnamed EEOC representative later assured her that she could

still sue despite having signed the agreement. (Pl.’s Aff. at ¶

13.)

37-38; see Def.’s Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or

Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Mot.”) Ex. A, Agreement.)

Plaintiff discussed the Agreement with her son and daughterin-law. (Pl.’s Dep. at 39-40.) Plaintiff also discussed the

Agreement by phone with Ed McCaffrey (“McCaffrey”), a

representative from the EEOC. (Id.) Plaintiff’s family members

and McCaffrey all advised Plaintiff to sign the agreement. (Id. 2

at 45-46.) Plaintiff attempted to engage an attorney, and

contacted perhaps half a dozen, but was unable to retain counsel. 

(Id. at 41.)

The Agreement provides, in relevant part:

1. TEVA agrees to pay DOUGHERTY, by means of a lump

sum, the equivalent of two month’s wages, in addition

to the equivalent cost of two month’s COBRA coverage

and further agrees not to contest DOUGHERTYS’ [sic]

application, if any, for unemployment benefits and, in

consideration of such and intending to be legally

bound, DOUGHERTY does hereby REMISE, RELEASE AND

FOREVER DISCHARGE TEVA . . . of and from any and in all

manner of actions, causes of action, suits, debts,

claims and demands arising from or relating in any way

to her employment with TEVA. DOUGHERTY specifically

waives any claims that she might have under Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with

Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act, the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of

1974, the Pennsylvania Law Against Discrimination and

any and all other federal, state or local statutory

claims or claims under common laws including claims for

breach of contract, wrongful discharge, defamation or

tortious conduct and any and all other claims arising

out of DOUGHERYS’ [sic] employment with TEVA which

could be brought in federal or state court . . . .

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 4 of 21
2. DOUGHERTY further acknowledges that:

(a) she waives her claims knowingly and

voluntarily in exchange for the consideration

described in paragraph one (1) above, and

acknowledges that she would not otherwise

have been entitled to that consideration and

that the consideration provided is of value;

(b) she has, by virtue of this Agreement, been

advised in writing by TEVA to consult with an

attorney in connection with this Agreement;

(c) she has been given a period of twenty-one

(21) days to consider this Agreement;

(d) she understands that she may revoke this

Agreement for a period of seven (7) days

following the date she signs the Agreement

and that the Agreement will not become

effective until the seven (7) day revocation

period has expired;

(e) if she revokes the Agreement in accordance

with subparagraph (d) above, she will no

longer be eligible for the consideration

described in paragraph one (1) above

. . .

3. DOUGHERTY further agrees and covenants that

neither she nor any person, organization or other

entity acting on her behalf, will file, charge, claim,

sue or cause or permit to be filed, charged, or

claimed, any further action for damages . . . involving

any matter occurring at any time in the past up to the

date of this Agreement before any court . . . involving

the continuing effects of any acts or practices which

may have arisen or occurred prior to the date of this

Agreement.

. . .

6. DOUGHERTY agrees that, as a condition of this

Agreement, she is precluded from disclosing, directly

or indirectly, the existence of this Agreement and/or

the terms and conditions of this Agreement to any

person, place or thing whatsoever, aside from

DOUGHERTYS’ [sic] immediate family, accountant(s) or

lawyer(s). DOUGHERTY further agrees that disclosure of

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 5 of 21
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment 3

on the Pleadings relied, in part, on Plaintiff’s Affidavit. This

affidavit included allegations that, during the months leading up

to Plaintiff’s severance, Cullen and other TEVA employees made

threats to have Plaintiff involuntarily committed. (Pl.’s Aff.

at ¶¶ 7, 8.a and h.)

this Agreement, its terms and conditions, and

specifically the terms relating to TEVA’S obligations

and the consideration described in Paragraph one (1),

by either party or by anyone acting on DOUGHERTYS’

[sic] behalf, including counsel, shall be deemed a

material breach of this Agreement.

. . .

See Agreement. Plaintiff stated that she understood that, by

signing the Agreement, she was promising not to bring a claim

against TEVA. (Pl.’s Dep. at 46-47.) Plaintiff executed the

Agreement on July 2, 2003 and returned it to TEVA. (Id. at 43.)

Plaintiff felt pressured by her family and Cullen to sign

the Agreement. (Pl.’s Dep. at 44.) Plaintiff and Cullen never 3

discussed the agreement. (Id. at 44-45.) Cullen did call

Plaintiff at some point after June 8, 2003, and asked her whether

she planned to return to work. (Id. at 45.)

Plaintiff testified that she signed the agreement because

she “needed the money for therapy” and for a place to live. 

(Pl.’s Dep. at 45.) While Plaintiff understood that she agreed

not to bring a claim against TEVA, she believed that the

Agreement was part of what she perceived to be harassment, and

that the agreement was “illegal.” (Id. at 41, 47.)

On July 9, 2003, Plaintiff called Cerbone’s office, and

planned to tell him that she wanted to revoke the Agreement. 

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 6 of 21
(Pl.’s Dep. at 49-50, 65.) Cerbone was not available, so

Plaintiff spoke with his secretary. (Id.) Plaintiff did not

state the purpose of her call, but asked instead that her call be

returned. (Id.) Plaintiff left a phone number for her son’s

home, where she was staying on July 9, and a friend’s house,

where she planned to be staying on July 11. (Id.) Plaintiff

testified that she also called TEVA again “a couple of times” on

July 11, and was not able to reach Cerbone directly, but left

messages on both Cerbone’s and his secretary’s voice mail, asking

for her call to be returned. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that she

did not leave a message specifically revoking the Agreement

because she believed that the language therein prohibiting her

from disclosing the existence and contents of the agreement meant

that she could only speak to Cerbone directly, and could not

leave a voice mail message. (Pl.’s Dep. at 49; Pl.’s Aff. at ¶

10.)

Michelle Wilhelm, an administrative assistant in TEVA’s

Human Resources Department, called Plaintiff at her son’s home on

July 11, but Plaintiff was not there. (Pl.’s Dep. at 66.) 

Plaintiff did not make any further to contact TEVA. (Id. at 50,

67.) In accordance with the provisions of the Agreement,

Plaintiff received a check from TEVA on July 11, 2003. (Id. at

52.) Plaintiff retained the monies paid to her under the

Agreement. (Pl.’s Mem. of Law in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. (Pl.’s

Opp.) at 4.)

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 7 of 21
Tu and Geiger were also TEVA employees. 4

In addition to the undisputed facts set forth above,

Plaintiff has, through her pro se pleadings and Affidavit,

alleged a pattern of conduct by Cullen and others that she

perceived as harassing and threatening. Specifically,

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s motion relies, in part, on

Plaintiff’s allegation that Cullen, Mary Ann Geiger (“Geiger”),

and Tu Din Tu (“Tu”) , threatened Plaintiff with involuntary 4

commitment. (See Pl.’s Opp. at 5; Pl.’s Aff. at ¶¶ 7, 8.a, b, h) 

Plaintiff alleges that in April and May of 2003, Cullen told

Plaintiff “I think you should take your medicine,” and mentioned

that she had once used force to make her son take medication. 

(Id. at 8.b, h) These comments led Plaintiff to believe that

Cullen would try to have her involuntarily committed if she did

not take her medication. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that, at some

point after Cullen’s comments regarding Plaintiff’s medication,

Geiger complained to Plaintiff about the condition of her car,

and then mentioned “we’re looking for a two to three year

commitment.” (Id. at 8.a.) This comment lead Plaintiff to

believe that Cullen had enlisted Geiger’s help to have Plaintiff

involuntarily committed if she didn’t leave TEVA. (Id.) Lastly,

Plaintiff alleges that in February 2003, Tu told her a story that

she interpreted as a threat to have her involuntarily committed. 

(Id.)

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 8 of 21
Defendant’s motion seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint 5

pursuant to Rule 12(c) or 56(c). Because we go beyond the

pleadings to consider Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, we treat

this motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.

III. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

In deciding a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. 5

Civ. P. 56(c), a court must determine "whether there is a genuine

issue of material fact and, if not, whether the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Medical Protective Co.

v. Watkins, 198 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). 

Rule 56(c) provides that summary judgment is properly rendered: 

. . . if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 

Thus, summary judgment is appropriate only when it is

demonstrated that there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-32

(1986). An issue of material fact is said to be genuine "if the

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict

for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A party seeking summary judgment bears the

initial burden of identifying portions of the record that

demonstrate the absence of issues of material fact. Celotex, 477

U.S. at 323. The party opposing a motion for summary judgment

cannot rely upon the allegations of the pleadings, but instead

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 9 of 21
Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to contain claims based on 6

interference, discrimination, and retaliation. (See Pl.’s Compl.

at ¶¶ 25-31.)

must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine

issue for trial. Id. at 324; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). "With

respect to an issue on which the nonmoving party bears the burden

of proof," the movant may satisfy its burden by "‘showing' – that

is, pointing out to the district court – that there is an absence

of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex, 477

U.S. at 325.

IV. Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims under the FMLA and

ADA are barred by the Agreement. Defendant argues that the

Agreement bars Plaintiff from asserting a cause of action under

the FMLA. The relevant regulations, however, prohibit Plaintiff 6

from waiving her rights under the FMLA.

29 C.F.R. § 825.220(d) provides that “employees cannot

waive, nor may employers induce employees to waive, their rights

under [the] FMLA.” The question of whether an employee can, as

part of a severance agreement, waive his or her right to sue for

violations of the FMLA appears to be a matter of first impression

in this circuit. Only a few courts have examined this question,

and the results have not been entirely consistent. We are

satisfied that the plain language of § 825.220(d) prohibits such

waiver, and that the regulation is valid under Chevron U.S.A.

Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 10 of 21
Under Chevron, where Congressional intent is unclear, we

defer to an agency’s reasonable construction of the statute it

administers. Romanishyn v. AG of the United States, No. 05-3141,

2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18225 (3d Cir. July 20, 2006) (citing

Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-843). The intent of Congress is unclear

“where a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the

question at issue.” Id. The initial inquiry under Chevron,

therefore, is whether Congress has spoken to the question before

us. The statutory text of the FMLA “neither explicitly provides

for nor precludes” the waiver of claims. See 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et

seq.; Taylor v. Progress Engergy, Inc., 415 F.3d 364, 369 (4th

Cir. 2005). Thus, Congress has not spoken directly to the

question of waiver.

Congress has, however, directed that Secretary of Labor

issue such regulations as are “necessary to carry out” the

statute. 29 U.S.C. § 2654. The comprehensive regulations

promulgated by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) pursuant to § 2654

includes § 825.220(d). The second part of the Chevron analysis

turns on whether the regulation is “based on a permissible

construction” of the FMLA. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843

While no court has concluded that § 825.220(d) is

impermissible under Chevron, courts have differed somewhat in

their interpretation of the actual meaning of that section. 

Compare Taylor, 415 F.3d at 369-71 with Faris v. Williams WPC-1,

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 11 of 21
Defendant offers Halvorson v. Boy Scouts of Am., No. 99- 7

5021, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 9648 (6th Cir. May 3, 2000) as a case

in harmony with Faris. Halvorson, however, while it allowed

waiver of FMLA claims in a resignation agreement, did not even

mention § 825.220(d), much less provide any guidance as to its

applicability. Particularly in the context of an unpublished

opinion with no mention of the relevant issue, we will not assume

that the Halvorson court considered the implications of §

825.220(d).

Likewise, Plaintiff suggests that Conoshenti represents the

Third Circuit’s intent that § 825.220(d) apply to all waivers

without restriction. Conoshenti, however, discussed whether

acceptance of a “light duty” assignment is considered waiver of

rights under the FMLA, and did not address the effectiveness of

waiver in a severance agreement.

The Fifth Circuit did not analyze § 825.220(d) under the 8

Chevron framework. See Faris, 332 F.3d at 319-322.

Inc., 332 F.3d 316, 319-322 (5th Cir. 2003) . In Faris, the 7

Fifth Circuit interpreted the language of § 825.220(d) as

implicitly limited in two significant ways. The Faris court 8

found that the term “employee” refers only to current employees. 

Faris, 332 F.3d at 320. Thus, the court concluded that §

825.220(d) does not invalidate a former employee’s agreement

waiving his rights under the FMLA. Id. The court looked to

other uses of the word “employee” in the FMLA and relevant

regulations. Id. Usage varied in whether it contemplated

current or former employees, and several instances of use within

the same subsection concerned only current employees. Id. Thus,

the court concluded that there were “strong indications” that

only current employees were covered. Id.

Faris also held that § 825.200(d) prohibits only the

prospective waiver of rights under the statute. Faris, 332 F.3d

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 12 of 21
at 321. The court treated rights to leave and reinstatement as

“substantive” rights under the FMLA that could be prospectively

waived. Id. In contrast, causes of action for damages – suits

based on retaliation or discrimination – were considered to be

“protection” for FMLA rights, and thus could not be considered

“rights under the FMLA” that were exempt from waiver. Id. In so

deciding, the court pointed out that § 825.220 references § 29

U.S.C. § 2615(a), which covers interference with FMLA rights, but

makes no mention of the protections provided by the retaliation

and discrimination provisions. Id. Thus, while an agreement

bargaining away the right to take leave or be reinstated

thereafter would be prohibited, one exchanging the right to sue

for retaliation or discrimination for some consideration would

not. See id. The court did not specify whether an agreement

relinquishing the right to sue for interference with an

employee’s substantive FMLA rights would be valid.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed with Faris, and held that the

plain language of § 825.220(d) prohibits any waiver of the

substantive or protective rights conferred by the FMLA unless

approved by the DOL or a court. Taylor, 415 F.3d at 368. While

Taylor has recently been vacated for rehearing by the Fourth

Circuit for unspecified reasons, we find that its core reasoning

is, nonetheless, persuasive. See 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15744 (4th

Cir. 2006). The Taylor court focused on the plain language of

the statute, supplemented by the administrative history of §

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 13 of 21
The relevant portion of the Preamble reads as follows: 9

Nationsbank Corporation (Troutman Sanders), Southern

Electric International, Inc (Troutman Sanders), and

Chamber of Commerce of the USA expressed concerns with

the "no waiver of rights" provisions included in

paragraph (d) of this section. They recommended

825.220(d). Taylor, 415 F.3d at 368. The court rejected the

Faris court’s conclusion that § 825.220(d) contemplates only the

waiver of substantive rights. Id. The court noted that, despite

the Faris court’s insistence that the entire section related only

to substantive rights, other subsections of § 825.220 mention the

prohibition on discrimination and retaliation. Id. (citing §

825.220(c)). Taylor concluded that the right to seek redress for

retaliation or discrimination is just as much a “right[] under

the FMLA” as the right to leave and reinstatement. Id.

The Taylor court supported its broad construction of §

825.220(d) by looking to the DOL’s responses to comments on the

proposed regulation. Taylor, 415 F.3d at 370-71. In response to

proposed § 825.220(d), several large businesses sought an

exception that would explicitly allow employees to waive their

claims under the FMLA as part of severance or settlement

agreements as allowed in the Title VII and ADEA contexts. Id.

(citing Preamble to the Final Regulations Implementing the Family

and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 60 Fed. Reg. 2180, 2218-19 (Jan.

6, 1995)). The DOL rejected this request, noting that a

prohibition on waiver was in line with the policy objectives of

the FMLA.9

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 14 of 21
explicit allowance of waivers and releases in

connection with settlement of FMLA claims and as part

of a severance package (as allowed under Title VII and

ADEA claims, for example). The ERISA Industry Committee

raised a similar concern with respect to the rule's

impact on early retirement windows offered by

employers. Such windows are typically open for a

limited period of time and require all employees

accepting the offer to be off the payroll by a certain

date. If employees on FMLA leave have the right to

participate in an early retirement program, but may

continue to have and assert leave rights, the leave

rights could adversely affect administration of the

early retirement program.

The Department has given careful consideration to the

comments received on this section and has concluded

that prohibitions against employees waiving their

rights and employers inducing employees to waive their

rights constitute sound public policy under the FMLA,

as is also the case under other labor standards

statutes such as the FLSA. This does not prevent an

individual employee on unpaid leave from returning to

work quickly by accepting a "light duty" or different

assignment. Accordingly, the final rule is revised to

allow for an employee's voluntary and uncoerced

acceptance of a "light duty" assignment. An employee's

right to restoration to the same or an equivalent

position would continue until 12 weeks have passed,

including all periods of FMLA leave and the "light

duty" period. In this connection, see also §

825.702(d).

60 Fed. Reg. 2180, 2218-19 (Jan. 6, 1995).

Like the Taylor court, we cannot fathom the Fifth Circuit’s

narrow construction of § 825.220(d) in light of this decision. 

This exchange of comments indicates that the DOL, and concerned

employers, realized the impact that § 825.220(d) would have on

release agreements made as part of severance packages. All

parties appeared to acknowledge that § 825.220(d) would prohibit

soon-to-be-former employees from waiving their right to recover

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 15 of 21
Also like the Taylor court, we are unable to find any 10

definition of “waive” that suggests that it refers only to the

relinquishment of prospective rights. Taylor, 415 F.3d at 370.

For the purposes of this case, we need not address the 11

question of whether settlement of FMLA litigation requires

approval of the court. We note, however, that this requirement

appears to reach beyond the plain language of § 825.220(d), and

involves situations in which the right to sue for interference or

discrimination has already been exercised. See, e.g., McRae v.

Master Craft Eng., Inc., Civ. A. No. 04-91, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

41372 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 3, 2005).

for violations of the FMLA that occurred during their employment. 

This belies the Fifth Circuit’s tortuously limited definition of

“waiver” as applying only to prospective rights.10

That the DOL analogized § 825.220(d) to the Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”) further supports the conclusion that the

language of the regulation was not intended to be limited to the

prospective waiver of the rights to leave and reinstatement. The

waiver of rights under the FLSA is limited to those releases and

settlements approved by the DOL or a court. See Taylor, 415 11

F.3d at 371. This comparison indicates an intent that the FMLA

and rights thereunder be treated similarly to the FLSA, rather

than Title VII or other anti-discrimination laws.

At least one other district court has found that §

825.200(d) invalidated a separation agreement to the extent that

it purported to waive the right to sue for FMLA violations. In

Dierlam v. Wesley Jessen Corp., 222 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (N.D. Ill.

2002), the court considered whether a settlement agreement

expressly waiving rights under the FMLA barred a former

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 16 of 21
employee’s suit for FMLA interference. The court concluded that

§ 825.220(d) reasonable under Chevron and invalidated the waiver. 

Dierlam, 222 F. Supp. at 1055-56. Though the case before the

Dierlam court was based on interference, the court appeared to

consider the waiver prohibition applicable to discrimination

claims as well. Id. at 1056.

District courts in Michigan have concluded that employment

agreements limiting the amount of time in which an employee can

bring suit against an employer are not enforceable as to FMLA

claims. Conway v. Stryker Med. Div., Civ. A. No. 05-40, 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20753 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2006); Lewis v.

Harper Hospital, 241 F. Supp. 2d 769 (E.D. Mich. 2002). These

courts found that the statute of limitations set forth in the

FMLA was a right under the law that could neither be waived under

§ 825.220(d) nor interfered with under § 825.220(a). Id. In so

concluding, the Conway court noted that “[t]he filing of a [sic]

FMLA suit is the exercise of FMLA rights . . . .” Conway, 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *3.

Based on the plain language of the regulation, we find that

§ 825.220(d) prohibits an employee from waiving the right to sue

for FMLA violations through a severance agreement. This

prohibition applies to both interference and discrimination

claims.

Having concluded that neither interference nor

discrimination claims may be waived, we must examine the effect

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 17 of 21
Plaintiff’s counsel further argues that ambiguities exist 12

with regard to the listed statutes because the language may

attempt to waive Plaintiff’s rights to file an EEOC charge or

otherwise participate in proceedings under Title VII. The cases

relied upon by Plaintiff, however, fail to show that this right

has been extended to invalidate otherwise valid severance

agreement language that does not go so far as to specifically

prohibit a plaintiff from filing an EEOC charge. See EEOC v.

Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 69 (1964) (concluding that EEOC

regulations with as to the specificity of allegations made by the

EEOC in a pattern or practice case should be broadly construed to

permit investigation to determine whether a pattern or practice

lawsuit is warranted); Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.,

500 U.S. 20, 28 (1991) (finding that an arbitration clause was

not invalid as interfering with a plaintiff’s rights under the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)).

Ratification and tender back are common law doctrines. As 13

applied to releases, these concepts require that an employee must

return the consideration given for executing the release before

bringing a claim relinquished in the agreement. See generally,

Long, 105 F.3d at 1540 (citations omitted). Where consideration

is retained, the employee is said to have ratified the agreement,

and is bound by even those terms that are otherwise voidable. 

Id.

of this conclusion on the Agreement. Plaintiffs’ counsel urges

that the Agreement, because it lacks a severance clause, is void

in its entirety as a result of the void attempt to waive FMLA

claims. Defendant argues that, even if the Agreement is 12

tainted by the invalid FMLA waiver, Plaintiff has ratified the

Agreement by retaining the consideration after discovering that

the release was voidable. The Third Circuit, however, has 13

concluded that the concepts of ratification and tender are

inapplicable to federal remedial statutes. See Long v. Sears

Roebuck & Co., 105 F.3d 1529, 1541 (3d Cir. 1997). While, as

Defendant points out, the specific finding of Long was that the

tender back doctrine does not apply to releases of ADEA claims

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 18 of 21
While we have already determined that any waiver of FMLA 14

rights in the Agreement is void, if other provisions survive, we

must consider the merit of Plaintiff’s arguments as to why those

provisions are voidable.

that are void under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act

(“OWBPA”). Id. at 1545. The court noted, however, that

ratification and tender back had been found inapplicable in Title

VII and antitrust laws because such a requirement would unduly

impair the remedial effect intended by such legislation. Id. at

1541 n.21 (citations omitted). The ADA and FMLA are clearly

federal remedial statutes. Nev. Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs,

538 U.S. 721 (2003) (upholding the FMLA as valid remedial

legislation); Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 263

(3d Cir. 2006) (noting the “broad remedial purposes of Title VII

and the ADA”). While ratification may be applicable in other

circumstances, we will not impose this burden where the rights

relinquished arise from a federal remedial statute.

That ratification is inapplicable does not, however, answer

the question of whether the entire agreement is void because it

apparently attempted to waive FMLA rights. Defendant does not 14

address the question of severability. Plaintiff has correctly

pointed out that the Agreement contains no severability provision

or savings clause. In the absence of any argument by Defendant,

we cannot conclude that severability of the agreement is grounds

for summary judgment on their behalf. Because Defendant has not

successfully shown that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 19 of 21
Agreement as a matter of law, summary judgment is not

appropriate, and is denied pursuant to the attached order.

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 20 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARBARA DOUGHERTY

v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

05-2336

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2006, upon consideration

of Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or

Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 6, 7), and all supplements and

responses thereto (Doc. Nos. 14, 23, 26, 29, 30), it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

s/J. Curtis Joyner 

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.

Case 2:05-cv-02336-JCJ Document 32 Filed 08/30/06 Page 21 of 21