Opinion ID: 701017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Breach of Contract Count

Text: 8 Nelson also asserted, in Count IV of his complaint, that his pendent state law claim for breach of settlement agreement should have been independently resolved under Missouri contract law. The district court dismissed this claim because it believed that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for breach of a settlement agreement involving gender discrimination under Title VII. See 29 C.F.R. Secs. 1613.217(b), 1613.214, and 1613.218; Brown, 425 U.S. at 835; Gergick v. Austin, 997 F.2d 1237 (8th Cir.1983). We need not decide in this case, however, whether Title VII provides the exclusive remedy. We decide only that where a claimant challenges compliance with a settlement agreement through the available Title VII procedures, he cannot thereafter pursue a claim under state law. 9 Nelson initiated his breach of the settlement agreement claim under Title VII procedures. He made a choice to pursue his remedy through EEOC channels and not under a state law breach of contract claim. Allowing him an opportunity to pursue a separate claim under state law would give him two chances to recover under the same breach of settlement claim. Accordingly, we agree that the breach of settlement claim was properly dismissed. 10 We hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the Corder and Waverly claims and dismissed the breach of settlement agreement claim.