Opinion ID: 6331520
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Family Dollar’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: On May 31, 2019, Family Dollar filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the Release, by virtue of its explicit and broad language, encompassed not only Mr. Araujo’s workers’ compensation claim, but also “any other claims” which he “could” make against Family Dollar—including, inter alia, claims within the jurisdiction of the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights. Family Dollar contended that the Release was “unambiguous” and, as such, “must be enforced according to its terms.” On July 26, 2019, Mr. Araujo filed an objection along with a cross-motion for summary judgment, contending that the Release was ambiguous because it was “reasonably susceptible to different constructions   .” Mr. Araujo contended that, because of the alleged ambiguity, extrinsic evidence should be “admissible to aid in the Release’s interpretation” and that said evidence would reveal that the Release was not intended to encompass his charge of discrimination. At the hearing on its motion for summary judgment, Family Dollar argued that the Release unambiguously precluded Mr. Araujo from pursuing his charge of -6- discrimination because the language of the Release expressly references the fact that, in addition to having waived his workers’ compensation claim, Mr. Araujo had waived his right to assert “any other claims” that he could make against Family Dollar. It was Family Dollar’s contention that, under the language of the Release, said “other claims” included but were not limited to: (1) claims filed with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights; and (2) claims filed pursuant to various statutes that relate to civil rights and employment discrimination. Mr. Araujo, on the other hand, contended that the Release was ambiguous because it did not specifically reference a “date of injury” or a “disability discrimination” claim. Mr. Araujo also argued that, even though the Release purported to waive “any other claims made against [Mr. Araujo’s] employer,” the failure to identify a specific person or entity as being the just-referenced “employer” rendered it ambiguous. The hearing justice found that “[a] reasonable person could read [the Release] the way Family Dollar suggests,” but she further found that, “[a] reasonable person could read it as Mr. Araujo suggests[.]” The hearing justice ruled that, because “reasonable people could differ” as to the meaning of the language set forth in the Release, the Release was ambiguous; on that basis, the hearing justice denied Family Dollar’s motion for summary judgment. The hearing on Mr. Araujo’s cross-motion for summary judgment was continued to allow Family Dollar an opportunity to submit additional briefing. -7- 2. Mr. Araujo’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment A hearing on Mr. Araujo’s cross-motion for summary judgment was held on November 13, 2019. Despite the hearing justice’s prior ruling that the Release was ambiguous, Family Dollar continued to insist that the Release was “unambiguous on its face;” it contended that “the only piece of evidence necessary for the [Superior] Court to rule on the validity of the release is the release itself.” For his part, Mr. Araujo argued that the extrinsic evidence6 to which he made reference was “so overwhelming, so compelling, [and] so undisputed” that the hearing justice should find that the parties never intended the Release to preclude Mr. Araujo’s charge of discrimination. After reviewing the arguments of the parties and the extrinsic evidence upon which Mr. Araujo relied, the hearing justice ruled that “despite what 6 It is not ordinarily necessary to describe extrinsic evidence in the face of a contract that we deem to be clear and unambiguous on its face. See Cathay Cathay, Inc. v. Vindalu, LLC, 962 A.2d 740, 746 (R.I. 2009) (“[W]e have consistently held that [i]n situations in which the language of a contractual agreement is plain and unambiguous, its meaning should be determined without reference to extrinsic facts or aids.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this instance, however, for the sake of completeness, we shall list the extrinsic evidence which Mr. Araujo referenced in his cross-motion for summary judgment. That evidence consisted of the following: (1) the petition for commutation filed with the Workers’ Compensation Court; (2) Family Dollar’s answer to the petition for commutation; (3) the letter dated September 12, 2014 from Mr. Araujo’s counsel to Family Dollar, which details Mr. Araujo’s “various employment law claims;” (4) the October 6, 2014 transcript of the hearing held before the Workers’ Compensation Court relative to the petition for commutation; (5) the commutation order and final decree entered by the Workers’ Compensation Court; and (6) the charge of discrimination filed by Mr. Araujo with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights. -8- the language in the release says,    it was not intended to include the discrimination claim.” Accordingly, the hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Araujo and entered a judgment declaring that the Release did not cover Mr. Araujo’s claims of discrimination. A timely notice of appeal was filed on February 18, 2020.