Opinion ID: 708854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: federal and state misrepresentation claims

Text: 7 Finally, Vaefaga contends that OSM obtained her consent to the settlement through material misrepresentations of fact and law. In Stroman v. West Coast Grocery Co., 884 F.2d 458 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 854 (1990), this court held that a waiver of Title VII rights will be upheld only if it is voluntary, deliberate and informed; moreover, the court detailed those factors that would determine whether a waiver meets those conditions: Of primary importance in [the] calculation is the clarity and lack of ambiguity of the agreement, ... the plaintiff's education and business experience, 'the presence of a noncoercive atmosphere for the execution of the release,' and whether the employee had the benefit of legal counsel. 884 F.2d at 462 (citations omitted). 8 While there is no dispute as to the clarity of the agreement, Vaefaga argues that since Cogdill allegedly misrepresented both the unemployment benefits process and her chances of success through that process, there is a genuine question of fact as to whether her assent to the release was voluntary. However, assuming Cogdill's representations to be false, there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that they rose to the level of being coercive, or that Vaefaga was under the type of economic duress that would justify invalidating the release. See Gruver v. Midas Intern. Corp., 925 F.2d 280, 282 (9th Cir.1991) (to make prima facie case of economic duress, plaintiff must show wrongful acts or threats, financial distress caused by those acts, and absence of any reasonable alternative to terms presented by the wrongdoer). 9 Neither are Vaefaga's state law claims persuasive. Oregon courts have held that statements of opinion can be actionable misrepresentation if the parties are on unequal footing, see, e.g., Holland v. Lentz, 397 P.2d 787, 795 (Or.1964) (statements of opinion can be actionable misrepresentation if parties are on unequal footing); Frank v. Fitz, 806 P.2d 720, 721 (Or.Ct.App.1991) (same). However, even if Vaefaga has some difficulty in reading and comprehending information as she now claims, she does have some experience in business matters; OSM presented as evidence her employment application, in which she states that she previously owned two businesses. Thus, even though Cogdill may be more experienced in the unemployment benefit process than Vaefaga, she is clearly not so lacking in common understanding that Cogdill's statements would rise to the level of being actionable misrepresentations. Holland, 397 P.2d at 795. Accordingly, there was no such disparity between the knowledge and means of knowledge of the respective parties as to take the case out of the general rule that expressions of opinion ... are not actionable. Id. See also Frank, 806 P.2d at 721-22 (where plaintiff was an experienced businessman who initiated the negotiations for a new business, the defendant's opinions about prospective sales were not actionable). 10 Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.