Wichman v. County of Volusia
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12760, 110 F.Supp.2d 1354, 2000 WL 1225120 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The validity of an employee's waiver of claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is not a jurisdictional issue but an affirmative defense. To be enforceable, such a waiver must be knowing and voluntary, which is determined by a court's evaluation of the totality of the circumstances surrounding its execution.
Facts:
- Merry Wichman was an employee of McDonald Transit Associates, Inc.
- Wichman filed a worker's compensation claim against her employer.
- During mediation for the worker's compensation claim, Wichman signed a 'Mediation Settlement Agreement'.
- The agreement stated that in exchange for a monetary settlement, Wichman 'agrees to execute an ADA waiver and voluntary resignation'.
- Wichman subsequently refused to execute the separate ADA waiver document.
- Wichman has a limited education (high school graduate) and was a driver.
- Wichman was distraught when she signed the settlement agreement and only reviewed it for a short period of time.
Procedural Posture:
- Merry Wichman sued McDonald Transit Associates, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Defendant McDonald Transit filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, arguing a prior settlement agreement barred the suit.
- The motion was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge James G. Glazebrook for a report and recommendation.
- After a hearing, Magistrate Judge Glazebrook issued a Report and Recommendation advising the District Court to deny the defendant's motion.
- Defendant McDonald Transit filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's report, bringing the matter before the District Judge for a de novo review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's agreement to execute a future waiver of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims, made as part of a worker's compensation settlement, bar a subsequent ADA lawsuit as a matter of law when there are factual questions about whether the agreement was knowing and voluntary?
Opinions:
Majority - Fawsett, District Judge
No. An agreement to waive ADA claims is not automatically enforceable as a matter of law and does not divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction; rather, its validity must be assessed as an affirmative defense under a summary judgment standard. A court must apply a 'totality of the circumstances' test to determine if the waiver was knowing and voluntary. In this case, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the validity of the waiver, including the plaintiff's limited education, the short time she had to review the agreement, the agreement's lack of clarity (as it only promised a future waiver), her consultation with her attorney, and her distraught state when signing. Therefore, the defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the case must proceed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that an employer cannot use a waiver agreement to dismiss a federal discrimination claim on jurisdictional grounds early in litigation. Instead, the waiver must be pleaded as an affirmative defense, placing the burden on the defendant to prove its validity. The court's application of the multi-factor 'totality of the circumstances' test, rather than a stricter contract law approach, reinforces the protective stance courts take toward statutory civil rights, ensuring employees do not unknowingly forfeit them. This decision signals that even when a settlement document mentions a waiver, courts will closely scrutinize the context of the agreement, making summary judgment for employers difficult if there is any evidence of pressure, confusion, or lack of clarity.
