Opinion ID: 584572
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the scope of the clause

Text: 63 If the district court determines that the promotions sought by the Taylors would constitute a new and distinct relation with Western-Southern for the purposes of surviving Patterson, then a separate issue arises: do claims relating to such separate contracts fall within the scope of the limitation agreement contained in the Taylors' existing contracts? 6 Once again, it is helpful to review the language of the limitations clause: Section III. Legal Proceedings You agree: 64 C. Not to commence any action or suit relating to your employment with Western-Southern more than six months after the date of termination of such employment, and to waive any statute of limitation to the contrary. 65 R.1 Ex.A at 2. The Taylors argue that their section 1981 claims regarding promotion opportunities do not relate to their employment with Western-Southern because they are based in part upon Western-Southern's refusal to allow them to enter into new employment contracts. These claims, the Taylors suggest, relate to the wrongful denial of prospective employment rather than wrongful treatment in their current employment. 7 66 We are persuaded that the clause is ambiguous with respect to promotion claims. On one hand, the phrase relating to one's employment can be read broadly to encompass any claim connected with one's affiliation with Western-Southern. On such a reading, the Taylors' failure-to-promote claims fall within the scope of the clause and would be time-barred. On the other hand, the same clause states that such claims must be brought within six-months of the date of termination of such employment. This suggests that the clause be read narrowly to encompass only claims stemming from one's current employment agreement, not on the defendant's refusal to enter a new one. On this reading, the Taylors' failure-to-promote claims would fall outside the scope of the clause and therefore survive. Thus, if the district court determines that the Taylors' failure-to-promote claims survive Patterson, it must also resolve the ambiguity in the limitations clause with respect to such claims. 67