Opinion ID: 2363011
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability of Channel 36

Text: The memorandum of agreement provides that all grievances and claims by or on behalf of Glenn Russell regarding his layoff from Channel 36 are hereby withdrawn, waived and settled. Mr. Russell argues that this broad waiver did not extend to his post-layoff rights under § 36-5-7. The trial court agreed that the waiver does not prevent Russell from pursuing his statutory right to veteran's status[,] and that Russell did not waive his right to veteran's status under § 36-5-7. We concur that the agreement does not operate as a complete waiver of all Russell's rights to veteran's status. It does, however, relieve Channel 36 of any liability it might otherwise have borne relative to his veteran's status. Given the circumstances, Russell's post-layoff counterclaim against Channel 36 is simply too intertwined with his layoff to be considered truly beyond the scope of his waiver in the agreement. Russell admitted at trial that he was aware of § 36-5-7 before taking part in layoff negotiations with Channel 36 in August 1993, but said that he was unsure whether he was finally eligible until he actually applied for and received his certificate one month later. Because of Russell's false disclaimer of his status as a war veteran on his employment application, Channel 36 had no way of knowing that Russell was entitled to veteran's status under § 36-5-7. Russell asserts that his veteran's status represents a post-layoff right, but by the terms of the statute, veteran's status ensures that any qualified veteran whose position has been abolished or is subject to layoff    shall be retained within the state services in a position of similar grade[.] Section 36-5-7(a)(2). In the agreement, Russell unequivocally waived all claims or grievances against Channel 36 regarding his lay-off. Yet Russell's post-layoff claims invoke the very status that might have secured his uninterrupted employment with the state if it had been timely raised. Mr. Russell's attempts to unilaterally imbue with a more personally advantageous meaning the terms to which he agreed are unavailing. His waiver is clear on its face, and it forecloses his counterclaim against Channel 36. Mr. Russell's own misrepresentations, silence, and delays caused whatever dissonance he may perceive between the rights he waived in the agreement and those he contends he has retained under § 36-5-7. Russell is entitled to his veteran's status, but he may not wield that status against Channel 36 in this context. Accordingly, we vacate and reverse the judgment insofar as it holds Channel 36 solely responsible to compensate Russell for the income that he would have received during the period of his lay off.